Has The Coup Already Happened?

President Obama has demonstrated that he can do anything he wants, violate the US Constitution at will, and the Republican Congress will not stop him. He has the full support of the press for any and all illegal actions. Hillary was taken out last week. No other Democrats seem to be viable candidates.

Through his climate change scam, he is creating an army of brown shirts who are 100% convinced that Republicans will destroy the planet.

Suppose Obama simply remained in the White House in January, 2017? He makes a speech that the world depends on his remaining there. McConnell and Boehner are much too weak to do anything about it. The New York Times would write an editorial, saying that this is awful – but we have no choice.

Who would stop him? Hillary was the only person standing in his way, and the Republican leadership is too weak to stop anything Obama does. The press is completely in Obama’s pocket. He has purged all disloyal military brass. Any effort to stop him might disrupt the Superbowl and reality TV. Americans simply wouldn’t put up with that inconvenience.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to Has The Coup Already Happened?

  1. Don’t be putting ideas in his head!

  2. Edmonton Al says:

    I read this: [up to 2013]
    “Boykin referred to recent reports that Obama has purged some 197 officers in the past five years.

    These reports suggest these officers were suspected of disloyalty or disagreed with the Obama administration on policy or force-structure issues. As Boykin pointed out, a number of them have been relieved of duty for no given reason.”

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/#kDRoE3VFMG4TJPjo.99

    • rah says:

      Though this administration has seen more relieved than most, there is always a pretty good turn over of flag officers in the military. Many times those relieved do not have their transgressions publicized even officially. This administration has certainly increased the number of flag officers that have been sacked for not toeing the party line though.

      I once had the Brigadier General in command at the JFK center tell me that when a new class of Brigadier Generals get their first star they receive a briefing on the conduct expected and pitfalls of becoming a flag officer. The very first warning made at his briefing had to do with the most common reason for relief for cause. Inappropriate sexual conduct and relations with subordinates and dependents of other ranks.

      Personally I think there are about 50% more flag officers than needed in the Army and Navy.

  3. When I was a kid there were “military manoeuvres” in England with tanks outside Heathrow airport. As a child I was interested but didn’t know the significance.
    In retrospect it appears the UK was on the verge of a military coup.
    Of course this was all filtered through the establishment BBC – who like their climate fantasy also more than likely completely glossed over what really happened. However, they could not hide the troops on British streets – and it got reported.

    • Smokey says:

      For the past couple of years I’ve been saying pretty much what Steven Goddard is saying here. But got tired of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist”, so I toned it down.

      Anyway, what Scottish Skeptic, Edmonton Al and others are saying reminds me of this, written by the American patriot Patrick Henry:

      “This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad?

      “Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

      “If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens?

      “I would rather infinitely — and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion — have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke.

      “I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him.
      “If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne?

      “Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push?
      “But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! We shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

      Food for thought… eh, folks?

  4. JohnG says:

    Why not simply have Michelle run? It’s not like it has never been done before to maintain a South American dictatorship in spite of term limits. And, it would be a twofer…first wife to succeed her husband as President. Now wouldn’t that frost the Clintons!

  5. Has the coup already happened? My answer is, it’s coups all the way down. I.e., it’s always coups.

    I wrote earlier about the possibility of Chelsea Clinton being prepped. Whether she is “viable” or not, she is clearly prepped to run at some point. They may have been planning her for 2024, but now they may be looking at moving her up to 2016. Or as Gail suggested, Hillary may have been a diversion or placeholder, which suggests 2016 may have been their plan for Chelsea all along.


    One thing is indisputable here. The object of all these machinations by the present White House is singular: to obliterate anything resembling a viable opposition to Communism. Once that’s done, then, in their view, they can return to “business as usual”.

    I suspect that blowing through the 20/1/2017 barricade at 90mph will not be necessary for that, but if it should be seen to be necessary at some point, unquestionably they will do it. Whatever they are, they are not chickens, any more than the Soviets were/are.

  6. Gail Combs says:

    New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced a bill in Congress on Friday to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which places term limits on the U.S. presidency.

    The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow Barack President Obama to become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office…..

    Obama: GOP Will Have To Change Its Stance On Global Warming

    He really is delusional.

    • That will not pass before 2016, because Leftists know that that would crystalize the opposition to them, and they’re trying to eliminate their opposition.

    • What I am talking about has nothing to do with an “election”

      • Gail Combs says:


        As I said before, Obama’s Admin has set the stage for a civil uprising.

        1. By aggitating the blacks.
        2. Setting up a ‘let’s you and he fight’ between blacks and cops
        3. Calling normal Americans ‘Extremists’ link
        4. Closing down up to 20% or more of US electric power (EPA’s WAR on COAL), while preventing nuclear and Natural Gas as alternates.

        This is where I see Obama and his heavily armed Administration going.

        One who observed and understood was the Creel Committee foreign educational section member, and future dean of Teachers College, William R. Russell. He was in Russia soon after the Bolsheviks seized power and spent considerable time there, working on Creel propaganda against the Germans, for the Bolsheviks, and later against the Bolsheviks. Russell described how he saw the communist tradecraft:

        The way they worked their way to the seizure of power was as follows: Talk about peace, talk about social equality, especially among those most oppressed. Talk about organization of labor, and penetrate into every labor union. Talk on soapboxes. Publish pamphlets and papers. Orate and harangue. Play on envy. Arouse jealousy. Separate class from class. Try to break down the democratic processes from within. Accustom the people to picketing, strikes, mass meetings. Constantly attack the leaders in every way possible so that the people will lose confidence. Then in time of national peril, during a war, on the occasion of a great disaster, or of a general strike, walk into the capital and seize the power. A well-organized minority can work wonders.

        Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

        I really really hope like heck that I am wrong….

        • rah says:

          I think you wrong Gail. Too many of us good ole boys with firearms and the knowledge of how to use them. They can control many urban centers but not the country.

        • That existed in Czarist Russia as well.

        • “The way they worked their way to the seizure of power was as follows: Talk about peace, talk about social equality, especially among those most oppressed.”

          That’s why they would want a Chelsea-like figure at the top (just like the effeminate Obama, fluttering his purple-painted eyelids while mocking the opposition as being impotent to get the people’s work done). Hillary and Warren don’t really fit that bill. They talk the talk, but they can’t walk the walk. Because they are fighters who have clawed their way to the top, stepping over all the bodies with a Stoic shrug.

          The Democrats are looking for a “caged bird” that they can “groom” for the top sales job. Someone that everyone knows couldn’t make it on their own. With someone like that, their syrupy populist rhetoric becomes more believable to the present-day citizenry.

  7. An Inquirer says:

    Among the fringe lunatics in the Democrat party, there was this type of talk in the 2nd term of Bush. To put forth this type of discussion associates you with fringe lunacy rather than in the mainstream of global warming discussions where you belong.

    • To say that it’s fringe lunacy that they are true Communists in the mold of Lenin is delusional at best and frankly puts you in the same camp as the Democrats you criticize.

      • What was the M.O. of the CPSU toward those who questioned the sincerity of their motivations? To label them mentally ill and prescribe medications … taken at the point of a gun, of course.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Richard T. Fowler says: “What was the M.O. of the CPSU toward those who questioned the sincerity of their motivations? To label them mentally ill and prescribe medications…”


          What do we see happening now?
          A new international diagnostic manual has been released. Millions of healthy people – may be wrongly labeled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday. (Reuters ~ 3:07 PM EST February 9, 2012)

          Head Case: Can psychiatry be a science?

          …Within the profession, the manual that prescribes the criteria for official diagnoses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the D.S.M., has been under criticism for decades….

          In the case of a patient who exhibits the required number of symptoms, the D.S.M. specifies only one exception to a diagnosis of depression: bereavement…..

          Christopher Lane, a professor of English at Northwestern, argues that this is a blatant pathologization of a common personality trait for the financial benefit of the psychiatric profession and the pharmaceutical industry….

          Turning shyness into a mental disorder has many downstream consequences. As Steven Hyman, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, argues in a recent article, once a diagnosis is ensconced in the manual, it is legitimatized as a subject of scientific research. Centers are established (there is now a Shyness Research Institute, at Indiana University Southeast) and scientists get funding to, for example, find “the gene for shyness”—even though there was never any evidence that the condition has an organic basis. A juggernaut effect is built into the system.http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/03/01/100301crat_atlarge_menand?currentPage=all

          And as the Rosenhan Experiment shows once diagnosed as “mentally ill” the label sticks no matter what. So it is a bit of a facer to find another article by Psychology Today Field Guide to the Conspiracy Theorist: Dark Minds Thankfully the attack is on Alex Jones and not Climate Skeptics…. This time…..

          …Conspiracy theories exist on a spectrum from mild suspicion to full-on paranoia, and brain chemistry may play a role. Dopamine rewards us for noting patterns and finding meaning in sometimes-insignificant events. It’s long been known that schizophrenics overproduce dopamine. “The earliest stages of delusion are characterized by an overabundance of meaningful coincidences,” explain Paul D. Morrison and R.M. Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London. “Jumping to conclusions” is a common reasoning style among the paranoid, find Daniel Freeman and his colleagues, also at the Institute of Psychiatry…

          So those who see what is happening and connect the dots can now be labeled delusional and paranoid as well as extremist or ‘terrorist risk’. Dr Ben Carson was labled an Extremist.
          Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S. Dr Ben Carson was also called an Extremist

    • bleakhouses says:

      I remember all the talk of a Bush coup and more Bush family being groomed for the White House. It was inescapable leftist chatter in 2006-2008. I though they were kooks then and I think the talk is kooky now.

      Serrano runs the term limits proposition up the flag pole every couple of years. He did it during Bush’s presidency as well.

      There is no question of the Marxism of the current administration and I have no idea what their goals are but I am quite sure they are not an overt coup.

      • As I said above,

        One thing is indisputable here. The object of all these machinations by the present White House is singular: to obliterate anything resembling a viable opposition to Communism. Once that’s done, then, in their view, they can return to “business as usual”.

        I suspect that blowing through the 20/1/2017 barricade at 90mph will not be necessary for that, but if it should be seen to be necessary at some point, unquestionably they will do it. Whatever they are, they are not chickens, any more than the Soviets were/are.

        • bleakhouses says:

          We must invite the vampire in for him to bleed us dry.

          Marxists understand that principle; they are asking us to let them in.

        • I get where you’re coming from, but one cautionary note is we are dealing with a 100+ year global movement that doesn’t believe in leaving things to chance and has a long history of resorting to extra-judicial violence when they conclude that it will be profitable.

        • ” I though they were kooks then and I think the talk is kooky now.”

          Jeb Bush is in the running now. You still think he was never being groomed?

          How about his son who is now running the Texas wind farms for their (the farms’) government overlords? Is he not being groomed either?

          The conspiracy is bipartisan, you know.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Agree, except for the terminology. This is about moving further toward a slow-motion fascist takeover. Not a communist takeover.

          And it IS bipartisan. Republicans expecting a change toward the Constitution after 2016 are about to get a huge dose of disillusionment. IMHO

      • What is Fascism? Just another flavor of Leninism. A single charismatic leader + all means of production in the effective ownership of the state (notice I said “effective”, there were many corporations in Communist Russia back then, just as there are today, in fact all the factories were corporate, as was the Party itself) = Leninism, or what Stalin called Marxism-Leninism. Lenin himself called true Marxism “Left Communism” (meaning to the left of himself) and “an infantile disorder”.

        Take away the Holocaust and the Teutonic supremacism, and this is functionally indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. Both countries sought a single worldwide one-party socialist “dictatorship of the people” under a charismatic and popular (but not democratically elected) leader who ruled for life (or at least until he wanted to step down) and exercised full control over all major industrial production and commercial distribution of goods, with the said global dictatorship to be headquartered in their own country, of course.

        Therefore Hitlerism and Leninism are fundamentally the same. I choose to call them both Leninism because Lenin came first. And also because Hitler lied about his system not being international socialism, but Lenin truthfully described it as international in scope, i.e international socialism.

        Is that so bad? I think it only makes sense.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Communism and fascism are both forms of socialism. Fascism is the melding of statism and private enterprise, through over-regulation, but favoritism/state subsidies for the chosen (as opposed to true free enterprise), among other dynamics. Communism is all state-owned.

          This country has been heading down the path of fascism for a long time. It is not going to stop with Republican pawn sitting in the White House. Unfortunately.

        • Marxist socialism is the original Communism, as anyone reading Marx’ work can plainly see.

          But this is not what the Communists we are familiar with advocate. They follow Lenin’s lead in turning their back on that.

          I said that the Soviets had corporations, and you didn’t respond to that. I said that Hitler borrowed the Soviet model but added racial elements, and you didn’t respond. You just repeated what you had said before, and ignored my efforts to clarify what Communism is. Hitler was a Communist. He lied about it because, well, that’s what Communists do whenever they think they need to.

          The Nazis were international socialists, as proven by the existence of the Second World War and Hiter’s many speeches explaining the purpose of it.

          Have you anything else, or is your mind made up and I should not confuse you with facts?

        • Disillusioned says:

          Richard, what about what I said, specifically, do you think is not true?

        • Disillusioned says:

          Richard: “I said that the Soviets had corporations, and you didn’t respond to that.”

          I didn’t need to. A state-owned corporation is a state-owned corporation. In communism, They’re both under the umbrella of socialism. In communist states, there are elite who benefit, just as in fascism.

          Having said that, I agree with much of what you say, except that I don’t think we’re headed soviet-style Communism. The facts show us, rather, that we’re heading toward fascism.

          There are myriad examples of our increasing fascist state. The affordable care act is benefits insurance companies, and the government gets revenue. The USDA benefits Big Ag, and rushes approval of genetic crops without testing. The FDA benefits big Pharma, and the government benefits from revenue. That’s fascism – not communism. Global warming-based regulations snuffing out coal plants, yet financing wind and solar corporations is another example. That is not free-enterprise. That is not communism. That is fascism.

        • Fascism is Leninist Communism with racial components. When we speak of today’s Communists we are speaking not of Marxists, who have never held power, but of Leninists who have held (and hold) mountains of power. You say Fascism is fundmentally different from Communism, by which I assume you mean Leninist Communism. You base your statement primarily on the notion that Hitler did not exercise the same amount of control over his industrial corporations that the Soviets did over theirs. This is incorrect, and leads to the incorrect belief that there is a major difference between the two economic systems. In fact there was almost no difference. In both systems the basic law of country assigned control of these corporations and their production to the government to do with as it pleased.

          The law also defined any industrialist trying to resist this principle as an enemy of state and the people. Thus, functionally indistinguishable from each other. In fact they were in competition for who would be the dominant power in the global government that they both fervently believed in.

        • Regarding your last paragraph there, I would say these are signs that we are moving in the direction of total state control of production and distribution, just as the Chinese, the Germans, and the Soviets did before us. If what you describe is Fascism, then the Soviets were Fascists. But they weren’t really, because the real Fascists also had their doctrine of Germanic or Teutonic Supremacy and maintaining Germany ‘only for the Germans’. Neither the Soviets nor todays Leftist Americans adhere to that twisted philosophy.

        • Disillusioned says:

          “What is Fascism? Just another flavor of Leninism…”
          “Therefore Hitlerism and Leninism are fundamentally the same…”
          ” Is that so bad? I think it only makes sense.”

          I never said anything about Nazis, or Leninism. Nazism (or “Hitlerism”). Nazism is a *form* of fascism. They are not one and the same. Leninism is a form of communism, and it is opposed to capitalism. That is different from fascism, which is another tyrannical form of socialism, but which uses capitalism for state benefit.

          Although they’re both about tyranny, and they are both about tyrannical socialism, their dynamics are different.

        • bleakhouses says:

          The difference was the adoption of Nationalism to achieve the goal; in this regard the modern west has adopted greenism in place of nationalism. The desired result is identical. Greenism is the seduction of the vampire.

        • Again, “socialism” is Communism. They have people so confused over this question, it may take many years for it to be well understood.

          You did mention Leninism indirectly when you said you disagreed with my terminology.

          You are right that Leninism is opposed to capitalism (a word of its own invention), but then again so is Nazism/Hitlerism. Thereby bolstering my point that the two are fundamentally the same.

          Now, would I say that Mussolini’s Fascism is the same? No. But when speaking of Fascism, I generally have in mind the Nazi system.


        • Bleakhouses, I agree with you about that.

        • On the subject of evidence, the only way to really know what the American Left’s end-game is is by “befriending” them and hearing it from their own mouth. I’ve done this, most have not. I offer my testimony as a warning, for those who will take it seriously. Those who don’t take my testimony seriously, can just wait and they’ll find out for themselves soon enough.

        • bleakhouses says:

          In this regard the lesson of my nom de plume, Bleak House, should serve as a cautionary tale. If you haven’t read it, it is, VERY briefly, the story of an extended family fighting over the res of an estate for many years. In the end the entire res is consumed by the fight. I fear that we the people are the res in this fight.

        • Interesting take, Bleak. I’ll be interested to read that.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Richard says: “Regarding your last paragraph there, I would say these are signs that we are moving in the direction of total state control of production and distribution, just as the Chinese, the Germans, and the Soviets did before us. ”

          You lumped Nazism in with Chinese and Soviet Communism. Hitler and Mussolini didn’t take over all the corporations. Mao and Lenin not only took control, they took ownership. Those are distinguishable dynamics separating fascism and communism. State control of production and distribution, while keeping privately-owned corporations to do the work (and benefit from) state control – not too dissimilar to some present-day examples in the US (provided above) – is about a fascist “state control of production and distribution.” Not communist state ownership, which is in addition to regulation and control.

          In this form of fascism, there is competition and incentive for innovation – and *benefit* by acquiescing to the state’s wishes. The state incentivises those who do the state’s bidding (positive reinforcement), whilst economically punishing independents and companies and individuals who do not (negative reinforcement).

          With the Leninist form of socialism, there is little incentive. Except for death and severe punishment (negative reinforcement). Leninist communism is dead. Fascism is the more-palatable form of socialism today- which is a slow-motion erosion of liberties, while keeping many of the ghosts of capitalism and liberty in place. That’s what we have.

          You seem to see us moving in the direction of Soviet/or Chinese control? But both the Soviets (the USSR died) and the Chinese have steered toward fascism and privately-owned corporations. They *both* (present Russia and China) have steered away from Leninist communism and come closer to a form of fascism, which provides more incentives than their original forms of Communism.

          So, with ex-USSR and China moving away from everything-state-owned marxism, and closer to fascism, I hardly see the U.S. going the way of Leninist Communism.

          No, I see more fascism in our future. More of what we have seen since WWII.

        • Disillusioned,

          The American Left despises anything less than complete control. As did the Nazis. My view is you’ve fallen for the propaganda … which is no great shame, as they’re very good at it, and I think we’ve all done it at some point or another.

          Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to engage and, as I say, this will not remain in question for very long, at least not to those like us who are interested enough to pay attention.

          At the risk of ruffling feathers, I really can’t fail to point out that we are simply describing the beginning of an arc that leads straight to Revelation 13. Also Daniel 8 is a perfect description of the regime as it exists right now, and the chapter contains characterizations of the country in question which can only be the U.S. Specifically, verse 8 refers to the four great colonial powers: Britain, France, Spain and Russia, and verse 9 refers to the U.S. emerging from Britain, and verse 10 refers to space travel and nuclear power. The rest of the chapter then describes this country as it would be under a megalomaniacal leader in a time described as “in the last end of the indignation”, therefore clearly marking this prophecy as not being of an ancient time. The megalomaniacal leader is described in verses 23-25, and in verses 11-12 we are told a set of event we will see to know that we are in the time for that prophecy: the ruination of the Church by the regime, “by reason of transgression”, i.e. the churches’ transgression against God will cause God to enable the dictator to successfully lay waste to the churches.

          The only thing missing from this prophecy is any reference to a global scope, but that is covered in Revelation 13 and, of course, elsewhere including the Gospels. The major takeaway, then, for me is that the global takeover will be driven by an American leader who, if he is not Obama, will apparently come shortly after Obama.

          This is not the first time I’ve written publicly about this, but is the first time on this blog.


        • You lumped Nazism in with Chinese and Soviet Communism.

          Economically they are indistinguishable. Hitler consciously imitated the Soviet system to the best of his ability.

          Hitler and Mussolini didn’t take over all the corporations.

          Again separating Hitler from Mussolini, and referencing specifically factories and mining, Hitler and his government most certainly did take them over, and exercise the kind of “control” that only ownership confers under any legal theory.

          Mao and Lenin not only took control, they took ownership.

          What’s the difference? Total control = ownership by definition.

          Those are distinguishable dynamics separating fascism and communism. State control of production and distribution, while keeping privately-owned corporations to do the work (and benefit from) state control

          There is no benefit from the kind of state control you’re talking about. The state enjoys all the benefits of such an arrangement.

          – not too dissimilar to some present-day examples in the US (provided above) – is about a fascist “state control of production and distribution.” Not communist state ownership, which is in addition to regulation and control.

          Again we’re not talking about “regulation”, we’re talking about complete control, which is what the Nazis exercised over all corporations that they deemed to be worth the trouble.

          In this form of fascism, there is competition and incentive for innovation – and *benefit* by acquiescing to the state’s wishes. The state incentivises those who do the state’s bidding (positive reinforcement), whilst economically punishing independents and companies and individuals who do not (negative reinforcement).

          All true in the USSR, China, and modern Russia, the last of which is still openly Leninist in its outlook.

          With the Leninist form of socialism, there is little incentive. Except for death and severe punishment (negative reinforcement).

          Exactly true of Nazi Germany as well.

          Leninist communism is dead.

          No, it is stronger than it’s ever been. Ever heard of the Socialist International? The Eurasian Union? The PRC passing the U.S.? The E.U. selecting its dictator without an election, and amending its constitution over the express objection of national electorates?

          Fascism is the more-palatable form of socialism today

          I hope you’ll understand if I don’t share your view about that, and I certainly don’t think the Left holds to that belief.


        • Disillusioned says:

          RT says: “Economically they are indistinguishable.”

          Economically they are very distinguishable. In one system, industry is wholly owned by the state, and the other it is not. (and “Hitlerism” had nothing to do with what I was referring when I said I think the better term for where we are headed is fascism).

          RT said, “Hitler consciously imitated the Soviet system to the best of his ability.”

          Since you continue steering the conversation there, apparently you think when somebody says “fascism”, that they’re talking about Nazism. Hitler (or “racial components”), etc., have nothing to do with what I was talking about. My reference to the USA heading more towards fascism was about the form, or path of fascism that the *USA* (and other western countries) are headed down, a form of fascism also known as corporatism. Although a distant relative, it is not akin to Germany’s National Socialism of the ’30s and ’40s (or Nazism). Nor is it akin to Leninism. Although they fall under the umbrellas of fascism and statist control, they are not the same. There are distinct differences, and whether you acknowledge them or not is irrelevant.

          RT: “Hitlerism and Leninism are fundamentally the same.”

          Then my political science professors in college lied to me. I should listen to you! LOL! SMH

          Seriously, although I would agree those two socialist forms of government are about tyranny and statist control, they are distinctly different in how they were implemented – but neither of which are about anything I was referring. The form of fascism the USA has been headed, is not Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, nor Vladimir’s form of Marxism. But I support your right to believe whatever you wish.

          Regardless of this rhetoric and semantics dance, I hope we could agree that the direction we’re headed isn’t what our forefathers who wrote the Constitution had in mind. It is a dangerous path we’re headed down. If so, then we’re on the same side. 😀

        • DD More says:

          Richard & Disill – I just go by this quote, which can resolve the Forms you are discussing.

          “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
          ― Robert A. Heinlein

        • I think I now see the root cause of the disagreement. D., you apparently do not consider Nazi Germany to be either Fascist or Communist — neither in intent, nor in actual practice.

          And despite the fact that the treatment of corporations in Nazi Germany and the USSR was identical — i.e. the regime told you exactly what you would or would not do, and you did it or else you were immediate toast, and they gave the corporation to someone else of their — you seem to accept that the USSR was Communist and Nazi Germany was not.

          But you want to say that Nazism was “socialist”, and though I have explained that Marx defined international socialism as being Communism, you do not want to believe that Germany was Communist. So in effect you are rejecting Marx’ definition of socialism in favor of a new one that is more palatable to you.

          May I submit that it is wrong to do this, not only because it may cause unnecessary confusion (albeit unintentionally), but also because it seems to assume that if we can just get some kind of compromise with the Left, whereby they go this far, and that’s it, that they will be happy with this and will accept it. They will not. They’re only taking the position they’re taking so that they can inch us a step toward what they really want. They figure that the closer they get us to where they want us to be, the easier it will be to get us to go the rest of the way.

          So, in summary, there is no “socialism” separate and distinct from Communism. There may be individual “socialists” who don’t really want Communism, but they are not representative of the movement. The idea that the end goal of the Socialist International is anything that could be called “corporatism” is simply not true. Though I have no doubt that they would love for folks like you and me to believe that, as it makes their job exponentially easier.

          Why is this all so important? Because it highlights a fact of central importance to our current situation, namely, that a country that is Communist, or is run by a Communist regime, does not necessarily have to have the full panoply of problems that the Soviet Union regularly experienced. That is not a universal condition for Communism. But we must oppose it anyway, for a host of other reasons.

          Mark Levin started out saying that those on the Left were advancing “soft tyranny”. He has abandoned the “soft” for several months now. Now he is just saying “full-blown tyranny”. He doesn’t really say “Soviet-style Communism”, but he has certainly compared the tactics of this regime to Lenin, and I don’t think it was tongue in cheek. Truthfully, there is at most a very thin line between “full-blown tyranny” and “Soviet-style Communism”. Levin likely has the same problem I do: if he says everything he knows to be true, many people will think he’s just pulling their leg or being hyperbolic. Because they can’t see what he has seen, or hear what he’s heard.

          Yes, your professor told you a lie. Whether you listen to me or not is not very relevant, because you’ll inevitably see it for yourself.


  8. Mac says:

    I’ve been wondering about the same thing for years. I think Obama is capable of anything. We know he isn’t especially interested in democracy, he’s a racist, and he hates this country. If you’re white and over the age of 40, I’m pretty sure he wants you dead unless you’re one of his little automaton toadies. I’ve commented in discussions on the increasing militarization of the cops in this country. The cops are riding around in camouflaged armored vehicles, wearing Kevlar body armor, and carrying automatic weapons. Tiny little towns nationwide are buying army surplus equipment that was used in the Gulf War. It’s insane. When I was kid, Officer Friendly wore a blue uniform, drove a Plymouth, and carried a .38 revolver. The crime rate was actually higher in those days, so why are the police gearing up to go to war with the populace? I don’t even remember the police becoming militarized just 10 years ago.

    Of course, if you say anything negative about the police, a lot of conservatives reflexively attack you and accuse you of being a leftist criminal. After all, if you’re concerned about the police becoming an aggressive and oppressive military presence, and violating our constitutional rights, you’re obviously a criminal, right?

    It’s a shame, because these conservatives don’t seem to notice who is in charge these days. The militarization of the cops is happening under whose watch? It wasn’t going on under Bush, or even under Clinton.

    • Michael 2 says:

      Mac says “if you say anything negative about the police, a lot of conservatives reflexively attack you and accuse you of being a leftist criminal.”

      IMO, it depends on whether you are painting ALL police everywhere with your paintbrush or you have specific examples in mind.

      • Mac says:

        It’s not “my paintbrush”, sir. I think the militarization of the police over the last several years has been fairly well-documented, even from sources such as Breitbart, Drudge, and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Other Republicans have been pointing it out as well. America should not be a police state, don’t you agree? Whether you like it or not, there is a general militarization of the police occurring in this country, and it’s happening under Barack Obama. There have been stories about it in the news for over a year.

        Please don’t play the leftist game of denying what I’m saying is true unless I list 10 specific examples. I think you know full well what I’m referrring to.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Actually these are two entirely different subjects.

        One is the militarization of the police force. Any sane person should view that with trepidation especially since the Department of Homeland Security is now entering into a ‘Partnership’ with the local police.

        The second is the escalation of hostilities between police and citizens. Police, because they have to make split second life and death decisions, are given a ‘free pass’ to kill by judges in most cases. What the public sees as clear cut murder is not viewed that way under the current legal system. Heck in many cases ‘Death by Cop’ is not even counted in the statistics which does not help the image of the local police.
        Hundreds of Police Killings Are Uncounted in Federal Stats

        FBI Data Differs from Local Counts on Justifiable Homicides
        A WSJ analysis finds hundreds of homicides by law enforcement agencies in the U.S. between 2007 and 2012 are not included in FBI records.
        …n the period analyzed by the Journal, 753 police entities reported about 2,400 killings by police. The large majority of the nation’s roughly 18,000 law-enforcement agencies didn’t report any.

        “Does the FBI know every agency in the U.S. that could report but has chosen not to? The answer is no,” …..

        Justifiable police homicides from 35 of the 105 large agencies contacted by the Journal didn’t appear in the FBI records at all. Some agencies said they didn’t view justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers as events that should be reported….. For 28 of the remaining 70 agencies, the FBI was missing records of police killings in at least one year….

        Then you get the progressives egging on law enforcement to view Americans as Extremists or would be Terrorists. The Southern Poverty Law Center is the Progressive ‘think tank’ that called Dr Ben Carson an Extremist because he thinks, as a Christian, marriage is between a man and a woman.

        You get this in a UK paper no less: Southern Poverty Law Center Report claims ‘Lone Wolf’ domestic terrorism is on the rise… with an attack or plan foiled every 34 days since 2009

        * Southern Poverty Law Center report cited 63 victims in six years from plots carried out by American extremists

        * Urged government to pay more attention to threats at home

        * 90% of recent domestic terrorist attacks were carried out by 1-2 people

        * And 51% were inspired by ideologies ‘of hate’

        * White House is holding summit to discuss countering violent extremism

        No one bothers to mention many were democrats or had been drugged by the US school system. link

        Also the focus of Homeland Security is NOT on external terrorists as our wide open borders show but on ‘Homegrown Terrorists’ That is any citizen who objects to the takeover of our country. link

  9. Gail Combs says:

    My comments are getting eaten by WordUnimpressed again.

    Is anyone else having the problem?

    • Disillusioned says:

      Gail, that has not happened on my end. However…

      …FWIW – sometimes the dialog box closes to a sliver (maybe two lines). It seems like the paragraph has been cut off (all except for the first couple lines, in the now-truncated dialog box). To fix it, I found that if I use the keyboard’s down arrow, the box expands again, with all the missing text reappears. Voilà!

    • jdseanjd says:

      Try just one link per comment, Gail.
      I was having the same problem on another site.
      Tedious, but it seems to work.

      • Disillusioned says:

        jd, I have posted more than one link. The only problem I’ve had with missing text I mention above yours – the disappeared links and text all came back when I used the keyboard down arrow, which re-expanded the – inexplicable – truncated dialog box.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    Ok, that went through maybe third times the charm.
    rah says:
    I think you wrong Gail.

    I have no doubt that Americans would put up a good fi g ht but the set-up is clearly there.

    Posse Comatus has been gutted so American military can be deployed in the USA. The Department of Homeland Security has not only a r med local police with military weapons it is also organizing them. SEE: Law Enforcement Partnerships An agreement was signed in 2008 that allows the CANADIAN military to be deployed in the USA in times of ‘crisis’

    Then there is the U.N.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I do not think they actually give a hoot whether or not a they’ succeed. The goal will have been reached. The USA as a World Power and as an example of individual freedom will be gone. Also the USA will be vulnerable. Mexicans really want the Southwest. China is land hungry, Russia wants Alaska….

      • Gail Combs says:

        Good grief I still can’t get the last three sentences passed the Censors!

      • Gail Combs says:

        Well it is censorship. I am getting “Duplicate Comment You already said that.” but the comment is not posting.

        They did this once before ia 150 years ago and it almost worked. Get the citizens to exhaust themselves and then France and England can step back in. The head of Russia saved the USA that time. They repaid him by having Tr o t s ky k i l l the entire family and to add in s ult to in ju r y paid him with American gold.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I had to rewrite those three sentences eight times to get them to post. I hope it is clear I was talking about the Civil War.

        • Gail, while this blog software leaves much to be desired I suspect it is as much to do with your own system not playing well with theirs. Until last June, I was using XP with a 2003 computer, and I had many similar problems to what you’re describing, though perhaps not with quite the same frequency. Hope that helps.

        • Neal S says:

          I tried posting Gails last three sentences without her added spaces, and my comment was swallowed up with no feedback at all. The system I am using here is quite recent and works well otherwise. I think that confirms that there is censorship going on.

        • Hmmm, I once saw Phil Jourdan going through weird trouble somewhat like tha. I think sometimes the automatic spam filters identify someone as a potential spambot, and then start applying more stringent filters on their posts. Not good, obviously.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks for the confirmation Neal.

          Richard, I switched from Opera to Firefox and the problem showed again within a few days.

        • Well, I wasn’t thinking of the browser in that regard, but more the speed of posting. But, who knows? I’m not an expert on this by any means.

        • Hmm, I just tried the T word and can see that it is indeed prohibited now. I used the word “T——ite” once on this blog, in reference to Lyndon Johnson, and didn’t have a problem with it. Bizarre. And I don’t believe I’ve done anything to upset the spam filter.

        • I think that if this can’t be fixed, all of us should find another blog host if possible. Because if they’ll ban T——, what’s next?

          BTW Mr. Disillusioned, I can’t help but take note that they haven’t banned anything to do with Hitler or the Nazis. Convinced yet? 😉

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Gail, no need to read the whole article, but the last sentence of this article
          https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/linh-dinh/postcard-from-the-end-of-america/ is “As for viruses, these aren’t just used by governments as weapons against each other, but also as a way to punish, or at least warn, individuals.”

        • Disillusioned says:

          “BTW Mr. Disillusioned, I can’t help but take note that they haven’t banned anything to do with Hitler or the Nazis. Convinced yet? ;)”

          I never equated U.S. form of corporatism, or fascism, with Nazism, let alone Hitler. You brought those red herrings into the mix.

          And, what are you trying to convince me of now? I confirmed that Gail’s link did not work for me either. SMH

        • Red herring, eh?

          The Germans were not considered to be Fascist? Oh, well. I tried.

          What I was trying to convince you of was that our opponents are censoring concepts related to Soviet-style politics and economics, because they don’t want us drawing comparisons between here-and-now vs. then-and-there — because that’s where they’re going at high speed. They have no problem with references to Hitler and the Nazis, because essentially everyone agrees we are not going back to that. They have a big problem with comparisons to the USSR and Lenin, because that is where they’re going. So the direction of the bias in their censorship points to how they see themselves, and what their plans are. If that’s not what they are, they have no reason to want to stop us from saying so.

        • Disillusioned says:

          RT: “Red herring, eh?


          RT: “The Germans were not considered to be Fascist? Oh, well. I tried.”

          Really Richard, you should try harder. I never said such. In fact, earlier – after you first brought up Nazism (I believe you referred to it as “Hitlerism”) – I said that the Nazism IS a form of fascism. How did you skip over that?

          RT: “What I was trying to convince you of was that our opponents are censoring concepts related to Soviet-style politics and economics,….They have no problem with references to Hitler and the Nazis, because essentially everyone agrees we are not going back to that.

          Well, I don’t believe in the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. I only care about the truth. It is my experience that statists and progressives don’t like the term “fascism” in reference to the form of government that most I know absolutely seem to support, because they wrongly assume one is referring to Nazism. They also assume – wrongly – that it is a conservative political ideology. Nazism is clearly a form of socialism – and it is a form of fascism – but it is distinct unto itself, and had *nothing* to do with what I was talking about.

          I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but from all I have studied, we’re headed in the fascist direction of socialism – not Communism. From all my studies, although they fit under the same roof, they’re not essentially the same. But, if you want to think we’re headed toward communism, that is fine; there clearly nothing can say to convince someone whose mind is made up (to paraphrase you). 😉 That’s okay.

          Richard, I would hope we can agree on a couple things: That control, propaganda and censorship from any tyrannical form of government is dangerous to liberty. And, that that’s the direction we’ve been headed. Whether we agree that those phenomena come out of distinctly different forms of tyrannical governments – or are essentially the same – is irrelevant. IMHO 😀

          Nice bantering with you.

          Speaking of economics, I do like one like classical liberalism (most have no idea that has nothing at all to do with today’s liberal-fascist progressives, but is just the opposite), Milton Friedman, John Locke, Ludwig von Mises and Freidrich von Hayek. Which economists do you like?

        • I wouldn’t say that I generally like any economists. My primary guide for politics and economics is The New Testament, with relevant parts of The Old Testament incorporated by reference. However, any economist who will admit that socialism as it is advocated by the modern Atheist Left is equivalent to Communism has my full attention. Because I already know this to be true from a plain reading of their own words, and from first-hand experience.

          I’d like to just make a few brief statements in response to your comment.

          You said,

          “Communism and fascism are both forms of socialism. ”

          And you said,

          “Nazism is a *form* of fascism. They are not one and the same.”

          Therefore, that means you believe Nazism is a form of “socialism”.

          But since you reject the idea that socialism = Communism, that means you reject the idea that Nazism is a form of Communism.

          I also said,

          “Now, would I say that Mussolini’s Fascism is the same? No. But when speaking of Fascism, I generally have in mind the Nazi system.”

          So that was meant to explain that some of our confusion was caused by the fact that when you originally said “fascism”, I assumed you were more talking about Nazi Germany that Fascist Italy. I obviously assumed wrong, and I basically said as much. Perhaps I shouldn’t have made that assumption, but I really didn’t think that whatever difference existed between the two countries was of any import to our discussion.

          You are right we’re headed in the wrong direction. You are — and I say this with great respect — wrong about how far we’re going to go.


  11. jdseanjd says:

    Yep, I was getting some censorship too.
    Myself & the chap who runs the site made a fuss, & they seem to have backed off, for now.
    It’s a site focusing on politics & economics in the UK & Europe, but the wider world is not ignored.

    I’ll post a link to this interesting thread there.

  12. Gail Combs says:

    Disillusioned says:
    Agree, except for the terminology. This is about moving further toward a slow-motion fascist takeover. Not a communist takeover.
    Fascism is now called The ‘Third Way” It is promoted by the Fabian’s London School of Economics, by Tony Blair, Anthony Giddons, Bill Clinton and the Progressives.
    SEE: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/08/highereducation.education

    Excellent info on the Fabians: The Socialist-Capitalist Alliance: the Fabian Society, the Frankfurt School, and Big Business: Part One The Third Way is an unholy mix of Socialist and Monopolistic Cartels. I refuse to mis-use the word capitalism as the Progressives repeatedly do.

    Explanation of Communism vs Third Way

    • Gail Combs says:

      On Communism:
      Was Karl Marx and his philosophy about helping the ‘down-trodden’ serfs or was it really about re-enslaving the middle class that had escaped serfdom? My comment on Karl Marx

      Marx and Engel saw the masses as scum

      Marx an Engels, 14. August 1879
      “Als wir heut morgen im Hôtel de l’Europe anfrugen, traf es sich glücklich so, daß grade 60 Franzosen sich auf die Abreise vorbereiteten, während andrerseits die mit frischem Menschenkehricht belasteten steamers noch nicht eingetroffen.”

      “When this morning we inquired at the Hotel de l’Europe, fortunately it so happened that 60 Frenchmen were preparing to leave, while on the other hand the steam ships loaded with fresh human debris had not arrived yet.”


      • Thanks for your comments. As I indicated above, there really is no “third way”, just repackaging of the same way that came twice before. The attempt to re-label is an obvious lie, conducted for the obvious reason that their system is not so popular after it’s been implemented as it is when they first talk about it.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Thank you Gail, for links explaining today’s fascism and the differences between fascism (Third Way) and communism.

      • Gail Combs says:


        One of the Progressives biggest weapons (besides lying) is the manipulation of our language.

        For example the word Capitalist is now applied to the thieves that stole our wealth to enrich themselves. Ever loan from a bank to a corporation SHOULD be accompanied by stock certificates given to every single American they stole that wealth from via inflation/wage devaluation.

        Think how wealthy we would all be if we, instead of the thieves, actually got the benefit from the investment of our wealth.

        • rah says:

          Gail I would be happy if even at age 60, they would give me back every red cent I have put into SS. In five years I would turn it into wealth that would exceed the benefits I will every draw from it.

        • They would probably argue that through the democratic process, we consented in advance to devaluation through fiat money.

        • Hey Gail, it occurs to me that even the term “socialism” is a massive and malicious manipulation of our language. This is used as a weapon against us. Who could possibly be against society prospering? Why, if you’re not a socialist, then almost by definition you are anti-social!

          That’s another reason why I prefer Communist or Leninist to “socialist”. Socialist is a misnomer, foisted upon us by its own believers.

  13. annieoakley says:

    What disturbs me the most is Marx being taught overtly in universities every where to young people already brainwashed to accept every Communist concept. Public schools use ‘group projects’ for everything being taught. I hear the 30 year old children, my own sometimes included, spout the propaganda preached everywhere. These are our doctors, business people, nurses, computer engineers and they have NO clue what is coming. In fact they will probably embrace it not fight it.

    • Thank you, you should win the blue ribbon for this page. Not exactly “fascist”, is it?

      • Gail Combs says:

        Richard, this is where they are headed link

        • Yes, seen that before. In fact, I think we’ve talked about it a few times. Of course that’s their ideal case, not all regions of the world will conform to the model in every respect. Truly the Soviet Union is their ideal model, and some of the aspects of Agenda 21 are in my view exaggerated just so the authors can claim credit for something original. But in many respects, that is where they’re headed. Of course.

  14. jdseanjd says:

    Perhaps the most interesting thing about Fascism & Communism is that both were founded & funded by European & US banksters.
    Prescott Bush, G H W Bush’s father, financed Hitler, for example.
    Google this, look it up.

    • Indeed they were, and still are.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually I think Karl Marx pulled a giant hoax on the peasant/serfs at the behest of the Aristocracy and the Bankers.

      For example:

      His grandmother’s first cousin married Nathan Rothschild, founder of the British branch of the Rothschild banking dynasty. Lion Philips’ brother Benjamin was a “banker and industrialist”. Lion’s son Frederick was a banker.

      Baron Ludwig von Westphalen was the son of Christian Philip Heinrich von Westphalen, who had been de facto “chief of staff” to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick during the Seven Years’ War. Through his mother he was the descendant of many Scottish and European noble families.

      In 1816 Ludwig was transferred to Trier where he met and befriended Heinrich Marx, the father of Karl Marx….

      ….In fact, Ludwig was seen as the mentor and role model of Karl Marx, who referred to him as a “dear fatherly friend”. It was Ludwig who first introduced Marx to the socialist teachings of Saint-Simon. Marx’s dissertation was dedicated to Ludwig… (WIKI)

      Marx later married Ludwig’s daughter.

      RIIiiight. A member of the Aristocracy, one whose father is high up in the pecking order, moves to Trier and befriends a Jew who just happens to be the very closely related to Nathan Rothschild the head of Britian’s banking. The SAME Nathan Rothschild who made his fortune by playing tricks and who was described as particularly brilliant, and was therefore appointed head of the House of Rothschild in 1812.

      A year before Ludwig is sent to Trier, Nathan Rothschild pulls off this coup.

      Historian John Reeves, a Rothschild partisan, reveals in his book The Rothschilds, Financial Rulers of the Nations, 1887, page 167, that “one cause of his [Nathan’s] success was the secrecy with which he shrouded, and the tortuous policy with which he misled those who watched him the keenest.”….

      There were vast fortunes to be made — and lost — on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo. The Stock Exchange in London was at fever pitch as traders awaited news of the outcome of this battle of the giants. If Britain lost, English consuls would plummet to unprecedented depths. If Britain was victorioug, the value of the consul would leap to dizzying new heights….

      ….Late on the afternoon of June 15, 1815, a Rothschild representative jumped on board a specially chartered boat and headed out into the channel in a hurried dash for the English coast….

      Arriving at the Exchange amid frantic speculation on the outcome of the battle, Nathan took up his usual position beside the famous ‘Rothschild Pillar.’ Without a sign of emotion, without the slightest change of facial expression the stony-faced, flint eyed chief of the House of Rothschild gave a predetermined signal to his agents who were stationed nearby.

      Rothschild agents immediately began to dump consuls on the market. As hundred of thousands of dollars worth of consuls poured onto the market their value started to slide….

      The selling turned into a panic …After several hours of feverish trading the consul lay in ruins. It was selling for about five cents on the dollar.

      …..On the cue from their boss, dozens of Rothschild agents made their way to the order desks around the Exchange and bought every consul in sight for just a ‘song’!

      …..Napoleon had ‘met his Waterloo.’ Nathan had bought control of the British economy. Overnight, his already vast fortune was multiplied twenty times over.

      The rest of my reasoning is in this comment on the Karl Marx

      • jdseanjd says:

        Thank you, Gail, yet more reading for me. 🙂

        Bringing this more up to date:

        These 8 families own the world’s 80 top billionaires.


        “If trends continue….the richest 1% will have more wealth than the remaining 99%, by 2016.”

        “4 years ago, 388 billionaires together held as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the world.”
        Now that’s down to 80.

        “The reason the wealth of the richest has doubled since 2009 is because it’s not a recession, it’s a robbery. Central bank & govt policy has done this, it’s no accident.”

        While one billion people go to bed hungry each night. This is a picture of the sickness ruling this planet.

        • jdseanjd says:

          Yes, Gail, I’ve read the Hudes & plos one articles. I’ll catch up on the others. We really are heading fast toward the feudal nightmare. But there are maybe cracks appearing in the mad US/UK/EU/NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation) Empire. It all depends now on if Russia & China are on board with the Globalist’s One World Govt Agenda 21, or not. Hard to see through the smoke & mirrors.

        • omanuel says:

          In that sense Obama is the most transparent President we have had since President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Nov 1963.

          We don’t like what we see, complete submission of the United States to totalitarian one-world government, but the problem is not lack of transparency.

          The USSR launched Sputnik in 1957.

          President Kennedy took office in 1961 and started the Apollo Space Program to avoid the USSR’s totalitarian control of the entire globe from space.

          After Kennedy’s assassination, Nixon secretly sent Henry Kissinger to China to negotiate a new peace agreement with the USSR and China in 1971. That ended the US Apollo Space Program in early January 1972.

        • Gail Combs says:

          From Global research, another discussion of the paper: Bankers Rule the World: “The Network of Global Corporate Control”

          …The study says 147 powerful companies control an inordinate amount of economic activity – about 40%. Among the top 50, 45 are financial firms. They include Barclays PLC (called most influential), JPMorgan Chase, UBS, and other familiar and less known names.

          Twenty-four companies are US-based, followed by eight in Britain, five in France, four in Japan, and Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands with two each. Canada has one.

          Moreover, “top ranked” companies “hold a control ten times bigger than what could be expected based on their wealth.”

          As a result, they have enormous influence over political, financial, and economic activity….

          One explanation for the “top ranked” companies “hold a control ten times bigger than what could be expected based on their wealth.” is Mutual Funds. Money from individuals and pensions is given to Mutual Funds who buy and VOTE the stock of the companies of their choice. This causes a massive concentration of control way out of proportion to the actual wealth of the individual. For example Mr Edward C. Johnson votes over 7% of Monsanto stock as chairman of Maggellan, Fidelity, Pyramis Global Advisors…. 85% of Monsanto is held by mutual funds and Institutional(financial) Holders.

          A few other bits of interesting of information:
          In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker.

          Clinton was President from 1993 to 2001. Statistics showed in 1990, before WTO was ratified by Clinton, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002, just after he left office this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP.

          Originally, according to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, banks were supposed hold anywhere between 12 and 18% of their deposits in “reserve”. That is where the words “fractional reserve” comes in. Gradually the Fed has lowered the amount of “reserve” required until now the banks are operating on no reserve.

          97% of the US ‘money supply’ is therefore created out of nothing. This fairy dust money is now owed to bankers/financiers plus interest and we pay them back with our labor.

          An example of the elite in action:
          Dan Amstutz VP of Cargill and president of an International Grain Traders Assoc., wrote the Draft for the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture under Reagan. He also wrote a draft for a farm bill later called ‘Freedom to Fail’. It was under Clinton both of these drafts were made law. Obama finalized Dan Amstutz’s plans to wipe out independent farmers when he signed the Food Safety Modernization Act.
          SEE: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/coldest-october-march-in-the-us-in-102-years/#comment-331925

          The War on American Farmers by the Bankers started a long time ago in the 1800’s. A more recent history of the Targeting of American Farmers by The Commitee on Economic Development, a Milner Round Table

          ‘The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.’ — V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution Quote provided by Anna Fisher

          1932 to 1937 – “The Collective Farm Policy was a terrible struggle, Ten million died. It was fearful. Four years it lasted. It was absolutely necessary.” Joseph Stalin

          1934, — “[Our] future is becoming visible in Russia.” Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rexford Tugwell

  15. phodges says:

    The coup happened in 1916. The Fabian wing of the international, or permanent (as blair and huxley called it) Revolution has been running America since then. As many above have noted, it does not matter what label you put on it. It is simply Totalitarianism and Collectivism.

    They have so much power now that the two wings of the Revolution openly vie for control over policy. War and Debt are the twin pillars of Revolution. Neocon or Neoliberal, will it be war or debt used to enslave those not yet under their control?

    • Don’t forget sex, drugs, and brainwashing. Oh, and that latter-day opiate of the people, professional sports.

      And free trade, though I suppose that could fall loosely under the category of “war”. Free trade restricts wages and the availability of work. So while it does promote greater debt, it affects more than just that. It’s like an economic MIRV.

  16. Gail Combs says:

    E.M. Smith who has a degree in economics has the clearest explanation of Comuninsm vs Facism vs Capitalism I have seen.

    “At the risk of having another “is so – is not” “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” thread break out on yet another unrelated topic…. to answer the implied question “why would capitalists destroy their own markets?”:

    Realize that the capitalist urge is not toward a competitive market. It’s the very LAST thing any profit maximizer wants. Even in Adam Smith’s “The Wealth Of Nations” he recognizes that ~’Rairly do men of means gather, even for merryment and {discourse?} but that the conversation turns to ways to {restrict competition and raise prices}’.

    What a profit maximizer wants is a monopoly where they can achieve the profit maximizing price point. Not competition. No “market” with many sellers.

    So watch what GE does, as an example. It is always on the hunt for a market it can “dominate”. It uses political leverage to get its products mandated and the competition banned. It doesn’t want a market, it wants a ‘company store’. [Agenda 21 is just a giant company town]

    Internalize that, and a lot of things “fit” better…

    Monsanto pushing legislation to ban private traditional seeds and seed sharing, and promoting GMO products. (Why would a seed company want to ‘destroy’ a seed market? So you must come to the company store…)

    EPA is used to forbid all sorts of things that can be done easily and cheaply, and where the alternative is very expensive (and available from very few, or one, supplier). So, want to make your own “trash to fuel FT machine”? Well, better check out all the “regulations” on fuel refining and production … if you don’t have a few full time lawyers to fill out the paperwork and a few more to defend against the EPA suing you, it’s a no-go. And who DOES have those lawyers? AND the already established refineries? Oh yeah…

    Once corporations figure out that it is cheaper and easier to get the competition banned and them mandated, than to create new products; and that they can make lots of money as the sole provider of a crappy product but not that much making good products in a competitive market; well, lets just say that the campagne contributions flow

    Oddly, you can look at Communism as the “limit case” where there is ONE corporation and it IS the government. At the other extreme is “laissez faire” with huge numbers of competitors. As you move toward Communism you pass through stages of ever more “concentration” of control. Just shy of communism is Classical Socialism with it’s state planning boards and commissions. A bit more toward L.F. you get “Market Socialism” (with some sub-types in between).

    The USA until about 1990 was a “Mixed Economy” with some “natural monopolies” under government “control” via “regulation”; and with many competitive markets. We’ve moved to more central planning and more central “regulation” (in some cases as a cover for the “planning” word that has gotten tied to Socialism… so is political to some extent). With the nationalization of GM and the bank “bailout” / “rescue” that was really more of a ‘take-under’ in some ways; we moved to a Lange Type Socialism.

    The result of the last 50 years has been more companies in markets with Oligopolies that are essentially guaranteed by the government. Who dominates the Home Mortgage Market? Fanny & Freddy – Gov’t Corporations. Who dominates the Student Loan Market? Sally Mae – a Gov’t Corporation. Who dominates US Autos? GM – a Gov’t Corporation via Nationalization, but now being sold off. (Though Ford is doing well too.) And who “Calls the Tune” for the Banks in America? ALL of them? The Federal Reserve Bank – a Gov’t sponsored corporation. And there are a whole lot more of them. Try taking a train from coast to coast for example…

    At the next tier down, we have Gov’t dependent Oligopolies. Say you wanted to make airplanes. First off, you need that dozen lawyers to work the FAA for you. Next up, you need some friends in the Military to feed you contracts. Don’t think so? When Boeing gets a $B contract to ‘study’ or ‘develop’ and you need to design your new tech from scratch on your own money: Who do you think will win? So the government basically decides how many companies it wants, and who they will be, then funds them “to plan” with contracts. (This is NOT a hypothetical… I’ve watched them flat out announce “We’d like Lockheed and Martin to merge” or “we don’t want…” usually when one of them is ‘having issues’ and the topic is raised. Then the gov’t casts the one vote that matters…)

    And so it goes…

    This is, dare I say it…. basically the same way the Fascist “Third Way” worked. (And it DOES work). FDR and Wilson both had high praise for The Third Way and you can see how they shifted America from a ‘free market’ toward “Third Way” government – corporation “cooperation” … It was this same process / tendency that Ike warned about in the “Military Industrial Complex” speech.

    So we’ve moved away from straight up competition (and with good reasons… it is less profitable and more destructive in some ways and it is prone to monopoly practices) and toward that Classical Socialist end of things; with exact placement varying over time. And we called it a “Mixed Economy” at the ‘tepid’ end; as the name “fascist Third Way” got a bit tainted during W.W.II …. that tendency for Mussolini and Hitler to stir in a load of Nationalism and for the Nazi’s a double helping of Racism spoiled the soup for the Third Way “Socialist Lite” folks like FDR.

    And the propaganda worked.

    We’ve now got a “Progressive” and a “Third Way” government that IS a form of Socialism. (Now being rebranded as “Market Socialism” in the Eastern Block and Euro zones; called “Regulation” in the USA and sometimes poking it’s head up under “Rescue” as well with the most recent bits called “Social Justice”… all the pieces as slices of salami, but no overall Big Picture of it… we like to keep our socialism hidden in tiny bites with different names.) But just don’t ever point out that it’s basically the same “Third Way” process, using what’s properly called “Corporatism”, to achieve the Socialist agenda; that was first innovated by the Fascists… After all, it doesn’t fit the propaganda paradigm “Fascists bad, WORLD Socialists good” put out by Stalin…

    And that is the root cause of your pondering. Corporations are very happy under a Socialist Third Way / Progressive / Market Socialism / Fascist / “Government regulated Coopetition” (whatever you name you like to apply to the same beast) system. They are not very happy with wide open competitive markets. See all of Europe for an example of “Managed Markets” (yet another name…) The French are masters of this technique, and the Germans not far behind. The Japanese innovated the Keiretsu as a way to limit competition to manageable chunks with government supervision.

    Like I said, it DOES work. What galls me is just that we run around putting 20 different names on the same process and that just hides what’s really going on. All for political reasons. Very “un-tidy”… You’d think these folks had something to hide…

    At any rate, I’d like our economy to move back more toward a “Mixed Economy” with less of it “regulated and rescued” and be a bit further from a Lange Type Socialism and more like the Socialism Lite we used to be. Somehow some folks think that means I want laissez faire (which is prone to other evil failures); even more folks think Corporations must be laissez faire machines and tools of the Evil Right Wing; when the reality is that they are much more useful to the Third Way Socialists of the world… and make much more stable profits under them.

    Hope that helps you see why “corporations would want to destroy their own markets”… Just need to change it around a little and it makes a lot of sense:

    “Why would corporations want to destroy the competitive nature of their own markets?”…

  17. Gail Combs says:

    DD More says:
    ― Robert A. Heinlein

    I love that quote. Heinlein nailed it. All the Elite are doing is trying to find the best method to enslave the masses and still get the most production and least resistance.

    From what I can tell they tried two different versions.
    1. Communism like in the Soviet Union and China.
    2. Fascism like in the European Union.

    They decided that Fascism aka Third Way worked best because it gives the illusion of freedom. Notice how both China and Russia are moving towards Third Way/Fascism and so is the USA?

    • Except Fascism is not a compromise between Communism and Capitalism. It only presents itself that way. The ultimate goal is the same — all production under a single global government, just as Lenin said.

      I don’t accept that those freedom-lovers caught up in Nazi Germany in any way thought of their situation as containing “an illusion of freedom”. I think that idea (i.e. that that’s what’s fascism was) is the illusion– an illusion promulgated by whom? Not by Fascists … not by believers in the Third Way … but by Leninist Communists masquerading as free-market “socialists”. There is no such thing as “free-market socialism”. That is a complete contradiction, actively promoted by the Communists. There is, at best, only a period of transition from private enterprise to complete Communism. Or there is period of Communist retrenchment while they plan their next advance. But there is also, out there, the illusion being promulgated that there is a stable compromise state than can be achieved and maintained. This is impossible as long as there is even one side in this struggle that finds such a compromise unacceptable … and in actual fact, both sides find it unacceptable.

      We must at some point come to understand that, as bad as we imagine the enemy to be, he is in truth much worse than we even can imagine. This is, ultimately, not primarily about economics. (As I’ve occasionally tried to convey to readers.)


      • Gail Combs says:


        Please remember that I am coming from the point of view that the Aristocracy (and Bankers) are behind both Communism and Fascism. The Aristocracy/elite lost control of the serfs and they want that control BACK. They want a return to feudalism adn they don’t much care how they get it.

        They lost control in the 1700s when there was:
        1776 – American Revolution
        1789 until 1799. French Revolution
        1803 – 1815 Napoleonic Wars (involving most of Europe)
        War of 1812
        1838 to 1858 — Chartism was a working-class movement for political reform in Britain

        All of this was the third estate (peasants/bourgeoisie) shaking off the yoke of the Aristocracy and the clergy and putting a major scare into the elite. Prior to that, for 1,000 years, you had the Divine Right of Kings backed up by the Church and funded by the Banksters. Then came the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. The serfs challenged the guilds, the church, the bankers and the aristocracy. The forgot their place and became the Bourgeoisie.

        Marx reveals his true position in this passage

        “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

        The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers. ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

        Marxism is the new ‘Religion’ that will bind the serfs to the elite as the old church*** bound the serfs to the Aristocracy.

        When you compare the roles of Marxism to the role of the Church in feudal Europe they are parallel.

        The divine Right of Kings
        “If the dictatorship of the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that the vanguard of the class is armed with resources of the state in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the backward layers of the proletariat itself.” — T r o t-s k y

        Justification for taxation by the Aristocracy and the tithe for the Church (Mark 12:14 – 17) and Altruism (Hebrews 13:5, Proverbs 19:17, Luke 18:25, Mark 4:19)
        “we’ve got to take Hegel’s idea and apply it to the family, to private property, to religion. We’re going to get rid of religion, we’re going to abolish the family, and we’re [going] to deny any right to own anything of one’s own.”Dr. Thomas West

        Your reward is in the future and not in this life (Matthew 5:1 -5)
        A Utopia in the future and the withering away of the State
        “Only one man, the wisest and strongest of all, can be entrusted with the task of building socialism. And this man must not flinch from inflicting mass killings, deliberate famines, and torture involving the suffering and deaths of many millions of people. The Wise Man must employ whatever means he deems necessary to root out the millions of enemies of the people so that he can lead men to perpetual peace, happiness, and total communization.” —- Stalin

        *** Note when I speak of the Church I mean an institution of men that has nothing to do with God. Chaucer describes the feudal ‘church’ I am speaking of. Think of The Pardoner, The Monk, The Friar, and The Prioress. The Parson is the only devout Christian in the company

      • Gail,

        “Note when I speak of the Church I mean an institution of men that has nothing to do with God.”

        Well, I’d have to say that’s the main area of disagreement between us. There is a true Church and there are false churches. A false church is not a type of church, just as false Marxism is not a type of Marxism, and a counterfeit dollar is not a type of dollar, and false freedom is not a type of freedom, and a “false god” is not God. But as sure as I sit here, there are people out there, and down through history, who want you to believe all of these things.

        The Church is a group of men and women united in a personal relationship and union with God, accepting the plenary authority of His Word as it has been revealed to them. It is also an institution that has something to do with God, always has been, and always will be … despite the unceasing efforts of Materialists and other Atheists to convince us otherwise.

        The Church is not elite or elitist. If there are individual members who advocate in this way, they separate themselves from God and the Church in so doing.

        I personally feel that the Communist movements in Russia and Germany were funded by Western bankers for the simple reason that this is what those bankers believed in as the path to what they consider an ideal or perfect world. Marx probably knew this, and that might explains his choice of words as well as his interest in associating with those folks.

        Truthfully, this whole subject is not new at all. I had a conversation with DirkH (who is from Germany) about this question, and he was initially miffed with me because he thought I didn’t understand that what I call Leninism far predates Lenin as an idea in people’s minds. But Lenin (not Marx!) was the one who literally got up and made it happen, after many others had tried. But Dirk and I agreed that this has been going on for many centuries in some form or another.

        I guess I would not agree with you if you’re saying that Marxism is basically repackaged feudalism. Yes, there are minor similarities. But I think if you could learn the thoughts of the top secular or anti-Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages (and there must have been many!), even they would not consider the system in use at that time to be the ultimate goal, but merely a ‘necessary evil’ of the present. Marx may well have considered such folks to be ‘ahead of their time’, so to speak.

        The greatest similarity that I can see between feudalists and Marx was that neither would have given much credence to The New Testament, as indeed it teaches against both of these philosophies, and the feudalists can’t be considered Christian any more than Marx can, since feudalism requires swearing oaths of personal loyalty to mere men, as well as requiring people to make war in many cases.

        One of the great differences between Christians of any time, and Marx, is that the Christians know that while we must personally strive to be the best we can, there will be no perfecting the world by us, and even God will not perfect this world but will melt the elements “with fervent heat” and start over from scratch, and that what He creates at that time will not need perfecting by us as it will already be perfect.

        Another quick note: you quote Marx attacking “free trade”. What he meant by that is free, private enterprise of any kind. That obviously is not what I meant by “free trade” in an earlier comment. In the modern context, the term refers more to that particular movement to force us to open our markets to foreign competition (including from Communist powers and their sympathizers) with whom our own businesses generally cannot compete in the domestic market.

        Finally, I would point out again that when Lenin came along, and after he came to power in Russia, he wrote his essay telling all the Marxists in his midst that they had “an infantile disorder” and insisting that his own way was to be preferred over all others. He also received Western banker money, and probably also money from Western elites who were not bankers. The same can be said of Hitler.

        So I’d say the important questions here are:

        1.Weren’t the elite supporters of Marxism just biding their time because they knew this was the path to where they really believed we should all be?

        2. To the extent that money came from wealthy Western elites to Marx’ followers, to Lenin, and to Hitler, wasn’t this really coming from non-Christians and anti-Christians, and doesn’t it really pertain to much more than just economics, but primarily to the idea of getting people to turn away from God and toward all manner of sin or evil, including to turn toward the state or secular government for help and services that they had used to receive from the Church?

        3. Wasn’t it really never about the Church at all, because the Church embraces God and His Word, whereas these worldly people set themselves against God and against the authority of His Word, a Word which states that throughout these years of the Lord’s absence, there would come many agents of Satan who would speak and act in Jesus’ name, seeking to deceive the believers into following them and following the one who sent them?

        – Richard

        • Gail Combs says:

          I put the note in to make sure you understood I was differentiating between real Christians and the Shamans who used the Church for other ends. Note that Chaucer also differentiated between the pious vilage parson and the shamans.
          (Language can be very limiting at times)

          Also I am well aware that the struggle for power has been on going since men first gathered in groups. I was just trying to get across the point that Marxism was specifically manufactured to take the place of the Shamans. It’s biggest asset is it does not go head to head with religion. You can have Christian, Jewish and Hindu Marxists with no real conflicts although the Soviets and Chinese have tried to wipeout religion.

          The French Socialist Pascal Lamy who was Director -General of the World Trade Organization pointed out the key needs for a global government: leadership, efficiency, legitimacy and coherence.

          “a governance system… needs to provide legitimacy, which is essential to ensure ownership over decisions which lead to change — ownership to prevent the built-in bias towards resistance to modifying the status quo…”

          In Feudal times and back to ancient times the political function of the Shaman/Priest Class was to grant rulers legitimacy. It was their function to tell the serfs and slaves that this was the natural order of things. Their servitude was the decree of the gods.

          The Marxist philosophy was to take up that political function.

          Shaw depicts it in the Fabian Window.

          Shaw and Webb are shown striking the earth with hammers to smash it to — “Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire’ — the line written at the top.

          Across the bottom, the masses are kneel in worship of a stack of books advocating the theories of socialism. Thumbing his nose at the docile masses is H.G. Wells who, quit the Fabians, and denounced them as “the new machiavellians.” Most revealing is the Fabian crest shown between Shaw and Webb. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  18. jack b :-) says:

    Busy thread. Head is exploding. Think i’ll go clean a couple rifles, poop the dog and take a nap. %-)

  19. omanuel says:


    The news blackout of events in Aug-Sept 1945 preceding formation of the UN in Oct 1945 kept citizens of Allied Nations unaware that:

    1. Japan exploded an atomic bomb off the east coast of Konan, Korea in Aug 1945

    2. Stalin’s troops captured Japan’s atomic bomb production plant at Konan, Korea in Aug 1945

    3. Stalin’s troops also shot down an American B29 bomber and held the crew for “negotiations” in Aug-Sept 1945, before . . .

    the United Nations was formed in Oct 1945.

    • omanuel says:

      The events that changed the course of world history in 1945-46 were noticed and recorded by:

      1. The novelist, George Orwell

      2. A nuclear geochemist, P. K. Kuroda

      3. The astronomer cosmologist, Sir Fred Hoyle

      4. A reporter for the Atlanta Constitution, David Snell

      • omanuel says:

        In the future, history will record the 1945-46 period as the time when stupidity of world leaders reached a maximum:

        They unanimously agreed to take totalitarian control of the world and hide the force of NEUTRON REPULSION in cores of:

        Heavy atoms
        Some planets
        Ordinary stars
        Galaxies and the
        Expanding Universe

        Only the bravest, most foolish, self-centered idiots would try to seize control of the world from its Creator!

  20. Gail Combs says:

    Oliver, these people do not believe in God. They are too arrogant.

    • Disillusioned says:

      And ignorant, too. Bad combination.

      The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance”
      Albert Einstein

    • omanuel says:

      They will, Gail. They will.

      They will humbly pray for mercy.

      They will believe in God when they come face-to-face with the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of every atom, life and world in the Solar System.

  21. Dr. Shoosh Mondoogan says:

    hey does anyone have a global picture with the locations of the temperature surface stations? I am curious to see how well/poorly cited Africa is, and other areas. I also want to know the percentage coverage of the surface stations, compared to the size of the earth. So for example, do we have 27% coverage of the globe with surface stations, or 40%? I have no idea and would like to find out.

  22. gallopingcamel says:

    President for life…………..the quick road to emulating North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela or Cuba.

  23. Beale says:

    It would be rather strange for someone planning a coup to go out of his way to alienate the military and the police, stigmatizing the one as terrorists and the other as thugs.

    • Gail Combs says:

      You are looking at it from the wrong end.

      At this point the Police and the Military owe their loyalty to the people of the USA and to the Constitution. If you want to change their loyalty. If you want to have them view Main Street as ENEMIES then you do exactly what is being done.

      “For 30 years, politicians and public officials have been arming, training, and dressing cops as if they’re fighting a war,” Balko recently told Vice Magazine. “They’ve been dehumanizing drug offenders and criminal suspects as the enemy. And of course they’ve explicitly and repeatedly told them they’re fighting a war. It shouldn’t be all that surprising that a lot of cops have started to believe it.”

      The Militarization of U.S. Police: Finally Dragged Into the Light by the Horrors of Ferguson

      The intensive militarization of America’s police forces is a serious menace about which a small number of people have been loudly warning for years, with little attention or traction. In a 2007 paper on “the blurring distinctions between the police and military institutions and between war and law enforcement,” the criminal justice professor Peter Kraska defined “police militarization” as “the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.”

      The harrowing events of the last week in Ferguson, Missouri – the fatal police shooting of an unarmed African-American teenager, Mike Brown, and the blatantly excessive and thuggish response to ensuing community protests from a police force that resembles an occupying army – have shocked the U.S. media class and millions of Americans. But none of this is aberrational.

      It is the destructive by-product of several decades of deliberate militarization of American policing, a trend that received a sustained (and ongoing) steroid injection in the form of a still-flowing, post-9/11 federal funding bonanza, all justified in the name of “homeland security.” This has resulted in a domestic police force that looks, thinks, and acts more like an invading and occupying military than a community-based force to protect the public.….

      Of course that wasn’t the first. PLEASE READ
      I know my synopsis is long but it is an excellent look at just what is happening in the USA due to the militarization of the Police.

      Militarized police overreach: “Oh, God, I thought they were going to shoot me next”
      Local law enforcement’s often using SWAT teams to do regular police work. The results are frightening — and deadly

      A small town Mayor has his house broken into by a SWAT Team, his dogs shot and his mother-in-law terrorized. He comes close to being shot. Unlike others who were not so lucky ( “Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book” The last sentence of a security guard shot to death by a SWAT Team.)

      A quick look at what Mayor Calvo underwent. Understand the police already KNEW sending packages to innocents was being used by a ring to move marijuana via FedEx. Think about it we are just talking marijuana not cocaine!

      “…county police knew the scheme was going on and knew some packages had been delivered to residences unbeknownst to the people who lived in them. The Washington Post reported a couple of months later on cases in which innocent people had been arrested….Calvo later told Post columnist Marc Fisher. “They knew this scheme was going on, yet it never occurred to them from the moment they found out about that package that we were anything but drug dealers.” Prince George’s County police chief Melvin High still couldn’t bring himself to rule out the Calvos as suspects, telling the Washington Post, “From all the indications at the moment, they had an unlikely involvement, but we don’t want to draw that definite conclusion at the moment.””

      This is how they treated Calvo and his Mother-in-law, Porter, despite evidence already known to the police, that they were innocent bystanders.

      Even worse“The officials in Prince George’s County, two of them elected, openly and without reservation stated that they had no problem with the collateral damage done to the Calvo family. It was part of the war against getting high—which even they had to know is a war that can’t be won. They didn’t even really think it was something to regret or learn from, or to try to avoid in the future. “

      …Calvo’s dogs Payton and Chase were dead by the time Calvo was escorted to the kitchen. Payton had been shot in the face almost as soon as the police entered the home. One bullet went all the way through him and lodged in a radiator, missing Porter by only a couple of feet. Chase ran. The cops shot him once, from the back, then chased him into the living room and shot him again.

      Calvo was turned around and put on his knees in front of the door the police had just smashed to pieces.

      …Calvo and Porter were held for four hours. Calvo asked to see a search warrant. He was told it was “en route.”

      …..Even after they realized they had just mistakenly raided the mayor’s house, the officers didn’t apologize to Calvo or Porter. Instead, they told Calvo that they were both “parties of interest” and that they should consider themselves lucky they weren’t arrested. Calvo in particular, they said, was still under suspicion because when armed men blew open his door, killed his dogs, and pointed their guns at him and his-mother-in-law, he hadn’t responded “in a typical manner.”…..

      But the lies, obfuscations, and stonewalling were only beginning.

      The police department would first claim that they had obtained a no-knock warrant for the raid. They then backtracked and blamed Calvo’s mother-in-law, arguing that when her scream blew their cover, they were no longer obligated to knock and announce themselves….

      …even more baffling, officials continued to insist that the raid shouldn’t have happened any other way. Even as they acknowledged that Calvo and his family were innocent, in the months and years following the raid they would repeat again and again that not a single officer did anything wrong, and that no one had any reason for remorse. In 2010 Sheriff Michael Jackson was asked during his campaign for Prince George’s County executive if he had any regrets about the raid. His response: “Quite frankly, we’d do it again. Tonight.” Even when Chief High called Calvo to tell him that he had been cleared of any criminal suspicion, High made sure to explicitly tell the mayor that the call should not be interpreted as an apology. The statements from county officials over the next several months were also astonishingly callous. A day after he called Calvo, High told the press that the raiding cops showed “restraint and compassion” and insisted that they should be credited for not arresting Calvo or members of his family. (The only incriminating evidence found in the home was the unopened box of marijuana that the deputies themselves had delivered.)

      Calvo decided to do something about the situation after receiving many communications that this was a common occurrence.

      …Calvo understood all of this almost immediately. Someone sent him a copy of “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America,” the paper on police militarization I had written for the Cato Institute two years earlier. A policy wonk at heart, Calvo devoured the paper, reading it on his subway rides to and from work. Still traumatized from the raid, his wife didn’t like the image on the cover—a close-up of a SWAT officer with his hand on a machine gun. Calvo then began reading up on the case law behind these raids. Within a few weeks, the charismatic, accessible small-town mayor had become a compelling advocate for reform….

      Armed with these incidents, Calvo went to the Maryland legislature to push for reform. The bill he proposed was modest. It required every police agency in Maryland with a SWAT team to issue a quarterly report—later amended to twice yearly—on how many times the team was deployed, for what purpose, and whether any shots were fired during the raid. It was a simple transparency bill. It put no limits or restrictions on how often or under what circumstances SWAT teams could be used.

      Yet it was the only bill of its kind in the country. And it was opposed by every police organization in the state. One Maryland lawmaker attempted to amend the bill to prohibit the use of SWAT teams in cases involving known misdemeanors, a seemingly reasonable restriction. That measure was rejected after more lobbying from police groups.

      By the following spring, the Maryland Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention released the first batch of statistics. They were predictably unsettling. For the last half of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times a day. In Prince George’s County alone, which has about 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once a day. According to an analysis by the Baltimore Sun, 94 percent of the state’s SWAT deployments were to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent that were raids involving barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and other emergency situations. Half of Prince George’s County’s SWAT deployments were for what were called “misdemeanors and nonserious felonies.” More than one hundred times over a six-month period, Prince George’s County sent police barreling into private homes for nonserious, nonviolent crimes. Calvo pointed out that the first set of figures confirm what he and others concerned about these tactics have suspected: SWAT teams are being deployed too often as the default way to serve search warrants, not as a last resort….

  24. jdseanjd says:

    This thread is nailing it. 🙂

    A little bit of historical context showing that the corporate/Govt fascist trend has deep roots in The (Rothschild owned) Brit Empire:

    A curious correlation between famine & railways miles. Famine as a control mechanism.

    Agenda 21 is nothing new.

    There is an almost exact parallel history in my parents homeland, Ireland.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And also in Scotland, England and Wales.

      The Enclosure Movement had been going on in small scale since the 12th century. The push in the 18th and 19th centuries to take land that had formerly been owned in common by all members of a village or by and change it to land privately owned by the Aristocracy had its roots in the Netherlands and occurred to some degree throughout Northern Europe and elsewhere. (Why does the Royals of the Netherlands and England keep popping up when you look at the nasties that are/were occurring?)

      ALSO SEE: The Highland Clearances
      (There was a very large movement of Highland settlers to the Cape Fear region of North Carolina.)

      Unfortunately the blasted Progressives are now using the horrors of the Enclosure Movement to push Agenda 21. They love the idea of land held in common to smash the idea of Private Property Rights. Straight back to Feudalism.
      Time to reverse the American ‘Enclosure Movement’

      • jdseanjd says:

        Nothing much changes, eh, Gail. Two enlightening articles, thanks.John Grisham’s novel, Gray Mountain deals with the environmental & human devastation allowed to corporations coal mining, strip mining in the Appalachians, West Virginia.
        Barbaric is the only word.

        The “austerity” being imposed on the poor of Greece to pay for the mistakes of French & German banksters deserves the same adjective.
        The Irish are getting restive also.
        The EU is morphing into a concentration camp. Madness.

        The governed & those governing. Us & them.
        Where does this all end?
        The hunger Games is where this finishes up, unless….

        If Steven Goddard continues to post political like this, then he will have whole posts disappeared, as John Ward has done, comments & all. John now saves his work on memory sticks, the cloud & another way I can’t remember.
        All that stuff’s a bit above my pay scale.

        • Gail Combs says:

          It is the idiotic ‘Useful Idiots’ BEGGING for slave chains that mystifies me. No matter how much data, no matter how many facts you toss at them they are bound and determined to become slaves.

        • jdseanjd says:

          A self-sufficient person perhaps will find it impossible to understand the mentality of either the natural servant, or the control freak coward. The banksters & their bureaucrat tools are the second category.
          But, the machine stops:

  25. jdseanjd says:

    Perhaps this needs the ws:

    As far as I’m concerned government is a conspiracy between media, politicons, & the big corporations.

  26. jdseanjd says:

    Another thought:
    especially at the lower end of the climate “debate”, where it can all too quickly degenerate to name calling & swearwords, many many folk have been brainwashed, through school & media, both govt agencies, to believe in the “Green Religion”.

    They’re honestly trying with all their hearts to save the planet.

    Maurice Strong set it up this way, with Club of Rome help. His wife was at Rio ’92, chanting with their acolytes, & his home farm is registered as a religious base, which, purely coincedtally, pays no taxes. Religion is a wonderful thing.

    Then there are the govt paid trolls.

    Troll, or true believer, they are impervious to facts.
    I no longer engage with either category, not wishing to waste my most precious asset, my time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s