Tuesday, 31 March 2015

America at War, Again


America at War, Again











by Stephen Lendman











War is America’s national pastime, not baseball. It’s a longstanding sick addiction. 











The business of America is waging permanent wars against one nation after another.











Nonexistent enemies are created. They’re attacked, ravaged, destroyed, controlled and plundered.











They’re ruled by US-installed puppets. Their people are ruthlessly exploited.











Governance of, by and for everyone equitably is strictly forbidden. Freedom is a four-letter word.











Longstanding US policy represents a shocking contempt for rule of law principles, democratic values, peace and stability.











War on humanity is the American way. Make no mistake. Yemen is Obama’s war.











US predator drones murdered hundreds of Yemenis for years. In February 2012, Washington installed puppet president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi.











Houthi rebels ousted him. He fled to Saudi Arabia. 











Its Washington ambassador Adel al Jubeir said “lengthy (US/Riyadh) consultations” went on for months. They proceeded Saudi-led air strikes.











When Hadi fled Aden on Wednesday, Washington ordered war – using regional proxies to do its dirty work.











On Wednesday night, Saudi-led Gulf state warplanes began bombing Sanaa and other Houthi-held areas.











Attacks continued overnight Thursday. So-called Operation Decisive Storm involves air and possible naval and ground incursions.











On March 26, AP said once airstrikes weakened Houthi positions, “ground invasion is planned by Egyptian, Saudi and other forces.” 











“The assault will come from Saudi Arabia and by landings on Yemen’s coasts along the Red and Arabian seas, according to three Egyptian military and security officials.”











“Three to five Egyptian troop carriers are stationed offshore, they said, although the number of troops was not specified, and the timing of the operation was not given.”











“The aim is not to occupy Yemen but to weaken the Houthis and their allies until they enter negotiations for power-sharing, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about the plans with the press.”











Houthi leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi addressed Yemenis on national television. 











He vowed “to confront the criminal, unjust and unjustified aggression.”











He blamed Washington, Saudi Arabia and Israel. “Yemenis won’t accept such humiliation,” he said.











He called enemies attacking Yemen “stupid (and) evil.”











Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri said Cairo is “prepared for participation with naval, air and ground forces if necessary.”











Houthi forces reportedly attacked Saudi positions along their shared border.











Obama bears full responsibility for what’s ongoing – besides other direct and proxy wars he’s waging.











A Russian Foreign Ministry statement said:











“Moscow is extremely concerned over the latest developments in the friendly Republic of Yemen, the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of which we have always and consistently supported.” 











“We consider it very important that all the parties involved in the Yemeni conflict and their external allies immediately cease any forms of warfare and give up attempts to achieve their goals through military force.” 











“We are convinced that the deep-running contradictions in Yemen can be resolved only on the basis of a broad national dialogue.”











“Russia, for its part, will step efforts towards promoting peaceful solutions to the conflict in Yemen both in its contacts with the parties involved in the Yemeni events, and at the United Nations.”











Vladimir Putin called for an “immediate cessation of military activities” and increased efforts to resolve things peacefully.











Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Yemen’s conflict means greater regional destabilization.











Interviewed on Arabic language al-Alam news, he called for “an immediate stop to the Saudi military operation…”











He said Iran “will spare no effort to contain the crisis…”











Beijing condemned Saudi-led aggression. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying urged all parties to “quickly resolve the dispute through political dialogue, solve the current crisis and restore domestic stability and normality to Yemen at an early date.”











Hezbollah called on Saudi-led forces to immediately and unconditionally halt hostilities.











Saying they “lack wisdom and legal and legitimate justification…They endanger the entire region.”











“We see that this aggression secures American interests and offers a great favor for the Zionist enemy.”











The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) urged all parties to protect civilians and medical facilities, as well as fully comply with Geneva Convention provisions.











Fars News reported Yemeni Ansarullah Spokesman Zeifollah al-Shami saying:











“We know that the Saudi aggression and airstrikes have taken place at the order of Israel and the US.”











He urged Yemenis to unite against aggression.











“God willingly, the crushing response to the aggressions of the Saudi enemy will come coming days,” he said.











Yemeni al-Massira television reported civilian areas bombed, killing and injuring dozens.











It bears repeating. Washington bears full responsibility for what’s ongoing. It’s directing and controlling Saudi-led aggression. 











It’s providing intelligence and logistical support.











Yemen is strategically important. It’s near the Horn of Africa. 











It’s on Saudi Arabia’s southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait chokepoint through which at estimated 3.3 million of barrels of oil pass daily, and Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.











Reports indicate Egyptian forces seized control of the strait to keep oil flowing through it uninterrupted.











US CENTCOM commander General Lloyd Austin said US regional forces will insure Mandeb and Hormuz straits stay open.











Riyadh declared Yemeni air space a no-fly zone to halt advancing Houthi forces. How effective it is remains to be seen.











On Thursday, tens of thousands of Yemenis rallied in central Sanaa against US-directed/Saudi-led air strikes. They vowed to respond.











Houthi Political Council member Ali al Kohom said “(w)e will react against Saudi oppression in all ways we are capable.”











“Yemeni blood is not cheap. Saudi has announced war in Yemen.”











Houthi official Mohammed al-Bukhaiti said “Yemeni people are prepared to face this aggression without any foreign interference.”











If Saudi-led forces invade Yemen, regional war may follow.











How much more bloodshed is too much before world outrage says no more? America’s rage for war risks ending life on earth.











Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 











His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”











http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html











Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 











Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.











It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.





Source Article from https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/173181-2015-03-27-america-at-war-again.htm?EdNo=001&From=RSS



Ted Cruz: Pros And Cons


Texas Senator Ted Cruz made his candidacy for President of the United States official this week. He is the first Republican to officially jump into the presidential race. He chose my alma mater, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, to make the announcement. Readers immediately inundated me with requests for my thoughts on his candidacy. Today’s column will attempt to answer those requests. Mind you, these are preliminary thoughts, subject to change one way or the other as I learn more about Senator Cruz.






 






Before I list what seem to me to be more obvious pros and cons of his candidacy, let me say that it is extremely obvious that Mr. Cruz is wanting to “corner the market” on the Christian conservative vote and make them the ideological and political base of his campaign. The fact that he chose Liberty University, the largest evangelical Christian university in the country, to make his announcement makes it crystal clear. And if some of the early reactions to the senator’s strategy are any indication of whether Senator Cruz succeeded or not, it may seem that he has taken a big step in that regard.






 






While the politically potent Religious Right of the Reagan/Bush era is only a shell of its former self, it is a stark reality that no Republican since Richard Nixon has won a presidential race without the enthusiastic support of Christian conservatives. Republican presidential candidates must at least APPEAR “conservative” enough to attract the base of religious conservatives or face a thumping in the general election. If you don’t believe that, just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney. And even though G.W. Bush was no conservative, Karl Rove and Company did a stellar job of packaging him that way. And as we know, more often than not, image garners more votes than reality. Sad but true. Former Texas Governor, Rick Perry, attempted the same thing in his presidential campaign in 2012, but was never able to make it stick.






 






By casting himself as the “Christian” candidate, Ted Cruz is trying to follow the campaign script of fellow Texan (and the last Republican to actually win the White House), G.W. Bush. And, of course, Cruz actually worked in the Bush campaign, so he has first-hand experience with it. And this is not something that Cruz feels uncomfortable doing. He is the son of an evangelical pastor and graduated from a Baptist high school. Accordingly, Cruz can naturally talk the language.






 






Since Jerry Falwell passed away, there is no evangelical leader with the ability and clout to coalesce, lead, and speak on behalf of enough Christian voters to make a lot of difference in Republican politics today. Plus, as a whole, the Religious Right has compromised its principles (and showed itself very ignorant of New World Order issues) so many times, and has disenfranchised so many religious conservatives that, as a movement, the Religious Right really doesn’t even exist today.






 






However, if one wants to get an idea of what the remnant of the old Religious Right is thinking today, read what my friend Richard Viguerie has to say. Richard is one of the original founders of what became known as the Moral Majority and then the Religious Right. He is still very influential with those who would identify themselves as part of the Religious Right. And Richard has glowing words for Mr. Cruz:






 






“Today’s official announcement that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is running for president changes everything in the 2016 presidential campaign.






 






“Ted Cruz isn’t running for Vice President or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Jeb Bush administration.






 






“Every Republican candidate for president will have to move to significantly to the right, starting with Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, and define their position on amnesty for illegal aliens, on fighting and winning the war radical Islam has declared on America, on spending, the deficit and the debt, and on repealing Obamacare, against the positions Ted Cruz will talk about and campaign on in the coming months.






 






“They will all have to move right to respond to Cruz, or be left behind by a grassroots conservative electorate fed-up with Republican candidates who are merely principle-free messengers for an out of touch Washington elite.






 






“Ted Cruz’s base is the conservative movement, and although other Republican presidential candidates since Ronald Reagan, such as Gary Bauer and Michelle Bachmann, looked to movement conservatives for their support, they were never able to expand beyond their starting base of support into the top-tier of candidates.






 






“Ted Cruz is the first top-tier movement conservative candidate since Reagan.”






 






See Richard Viguerie’s complete statement here:






 






Cruz is the First Top-Tier Movement Conservative Candidate Since Reagan






 






I don’t remember Richard making such a statement about Rick Perry in 2012, so the above remarks regarding Senator Cruz from someone of the stature of Richard Viguerie mean that Ted has succeeded (at least initially) in establishing himself as the “Christian” candidate in the 2016 presidential race.






 






Before leaving this section of the column, let me say that I believe MUCH has changed from 2000, when G.W. Bush was first elected. The compromise and demise of the Religious Right as a political movement means that pseudo-conservatives, such as G.W. Bush, are going to have a much tougher time winning the support of principled freedomists–many of whom are Christians who are fed up with the compromise of professing “Christian” candidates–and many who would not even identify themselves as Christians, but who were once attracted to the political principles of the Religious Right, and who now have lost all respect for the old Religious Right in general and the Republican Party in particular.






 






Too, the candidacy of Ron Paul in 2008–and especially in 2012–has FOREVER changed the political landscape of America (for the better). The defection of the “Paul Revolutionaries” from the Republican Party has been massive. Yes, many of Ron’s supporters are still very much involved in the GOP, but they are NOT LOYAL to the GOP. Meaning, any Republican candidate for President will have to EARN the vote of these people. They will not receive their vote simply because they wear the Republican label. Again, ask McCain and Romney, if you don’t believe that.






 






Therefore, while it is still good strategy for a Republican presidential candidate to court the evangelical vote, it will not, by itself, carry the same momentum throughout the primary and general election seasons like it did with G.W. Bush in 2000. And as far as Cruz pulling the rest of the GOP field to the right, most every Republican candidate attempts to characterize him or herself as a “conservative” during the primaries, a Ted Cruz candidacy notwithstanding. Of course, Jeb Bush is counting on the big dollars of country club, NWO elites to buy him the nomination. Big-Government globalists everywhere must be salivating over another potential Bush vs. Clinton (not that Hillary has the Democrat nomination sewed up, because she doesn’t) presidential election. It would mean the Crime Family (no matter which one would win) would be back in the White House.






 






At any rate, here are some of my preliminary assessments of Ted Cruz.






 






Pros






 






*The “Christian” candidate






 






His ability to cast himself early on as “the” Christian candidate will definitely be a plus as he approaches the primary season.






 






On a personal note, I would rather vote for an unbeliever who would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than a believer who would NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In my opinion, Christians on the whole are very naïve to vote for political candidates based on his or her “Christian” profession alone. Just about every politician in the country claims to be a Christian. That, by itself, means very little to the actual performance of most elected officials. It SHOULD, but it doesn’t. But for the purpose of this column, I’m saying that Mr. Cruz’s decision to not shy away from a Christian testimony should not be regarded as a negative–especially in light of all of the anti-Christian bias in the establishment media.






 






*His voting record in general






 






He has a cumulative voting record of 89% by The Freedom Index of The New American magazine. The Freedom Index is one of the best barometers of a congressman or senator’s constitutional voting record that I know of. That Cruz is right at 90% on The Freedom Index is nothing but a positive.






 






See his rating on The Freedom Index here:






 






Ted Cruz’s Profile-The Freedom Index






 






*His leadership against illegal immigration and executive amnesty






 






Senator Cruz must be regarded as one of the senate’s most outspoken opponents of Barack Obama’s executive amnesty order in particular and illegal immigration in general.






 






*As far as I can tell, Mr. Cruz is solid on the Second Amendment and pro-life issues






 






For me, these two issues are deal breakers. I will not vote for ANY candidate that compromises either one of these two issues. In this regard, potential GOP presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, is going to have problems, as he is on record as strongly advocating additional gun control.






 






Cons






 






*His place of birth






 






Much was made in the Republican Party over Barack Obama’s birthplace. In my personal opinion, those concerns were very legitimate. I’ll say it outright: I believe Obama’s U.S. birth certificate is a forgery. In all likelihood, Obama is indeed the first President of the United States to not be born in the U.S. But, unfortunately, he won’t be the last.






 






The Republicans nominated John McCain for President in 2008, and McCain was not born in the United States, either. Yes, he was born on a U.S. military installation overseas and his parents were both Americans. So, in the minds of everyone in the Republican Party, McCain met the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution. But with Senator Cruz, there is no question regarding his place of birth. The man was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. His father was a native-born Cuban who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005, and his mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware.






 






This fact will probably not hurt Ted during the GOP primaries, but should he win the nomination, you can bet that Democrats will make it a huge issue in the general election, especially after all of the controversy that Obama endured over the subject.






 






Plus, if Ted Cruz should win the White House next year, it would doubtless open the door for just about anyone to run for President no matter their place of birth. Remember, this was the issue that stopped Arnold Schwarzenegger from running for President not too many years ago.






 






Obviously, many take the position that as long as a person is born to a U.S. citizen, he or she automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of the location of his or her birth. But there is no question that Democrats will make Ted’s birthplace an issue in the general election, should he win the Republican nomination.






 






*His pro-war foreign policy






 






In my opinion, this is where the establishment Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is at its WORST. G.W. Bush’s preemptive war doctrine turned the national GOP into a pro-war leviathan. Like most every Republican in Washington, D.C., (except Rand Paul) Cruz has bought into the global “war on terror” apparition that is spawning the New World Order abroad and a Police State at home. There is nothing about Ted Cruz that leads me to believe that he would do anything to stop America’s militarism and hegemony that is wreaking havoc around the world and that is leading our country toward nuclear war.






 






And one further note on this point: though it is going to be difficult for Rand Paul to win the Republican nomination, as he is the establishment elite’s most dreaded candidate, Dr. Paul would in all actuality be the most formidable Republican presidential candidate in the general election.






 






More people than ever are not voting. More people than ever are claiming to be political independents. More people than ever have developed strong opinions against both major parties in Washington, D.C. And one of the biggest reasons for this phenomenon is the Warfare State that both parties in D.C. have created. In reality, Rand Paul’s foreign policy is in sync with more Americans across the board than any other potential candidate from either the Republican or Democrat party. Again, pro-war Republicans might look askance at Rand Paul, but in a general election, his appeal would be massive. Look at how popular Dr. Paul is becoming on the college campuses of America. But if the national GOP follows suit, they would rather lose with a candidate like John McCain or Mitt Romney–or any other pro-war candidate–than win with a constitutional foreign policy candidate such as Ron or Rand Paul. But we’ll see. Rand is not officially in the race yet.






 






*His wife






 






Ted Cruz is married to Heidi Nelson Cruz. Heidi will be lauded by everyone in the establishment media as very smart, educated (she is), and nothing but an asset to Ted’s presidential efforts. But Heidi gives me nothing but red flags.






 






Heidi worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice. Heidi is head of the Southwest Region in the investment Management Division of Goldman Sachs & Co, and was also an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Heidi is an international investment banker who was invited to be part of a working group at the CFR which reviewed a notorious 2005 paper called “Building a North American Community.” This project was headed by longtime CFR member Robert Pastor and is universally regarded by constitutionalists as the prototype for a North American Union. Of course, Condoleezza Rice, herself, is a longtime CFR member.






 






In my opinion, there is no more nefarious organization in the country than the CFR. Without a doubt, it has been the most influential organization over America’s foreign policy affairs of any organization to ever exist. It is the CFR that has long pushed the United States into regionalization and globalism. It is the CFR that is most responsible for pushing America into a New World Order. CFR members litter the presidential administrations of both Republicans and Democrats, which is why no matter which party assumes the White House, nothing changes in the direction of America’s foreign policy. And, of course, Goldman Sachs is, by far, the largest and most influential international banking system in the country. Everything that is harmful to the economic independence of America is spearheaded by Goldman Sachs.






 






Yes, I realize that there are good people who have been part of the CFR (Admiral Chester Ward, for example), and doubtless there must be a few good folks who work for a company as large as Goldman, but Heidi’s longstanding connections with these two organizations do give me pause. Mind you, at this point, I am not condemning, just pointing out red flags.






 






*His infatuation with Israel






 






Ted Cruz recently spoke before the non-partisan group “In Defense of Christians” (IDC). In so doing, he began to laud, not the Christians who are suffering in the Middle East (which the organization is designed to help), but the modern state of Israel. When he did this, he was booed by the audience. Cruz became very angry and walked off the stage, saying, “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you.”






 






But that was not the point. The IDC is all about helping persecuted Christians in the Middle East. And, yes, sometimes it is Israel that does the persecuting. Senator Cruz apparently has no cognizance of the fact that Christians are often persecuted by both Muslims and Jews. Either Mr. Cruz didn’t understand the purpose of the IDC and the plight of Christians in the Middle East, or, the for the sake of a publicity stunt, he deliberately chose to throw the Jewish factor in the face of those folks knowing the sensitivity of their feelings at Christians sometimes being persecuted by Jews. No one but Ted Cruz knows his heart in the matter.






 






See the IDC website here:






 






In Defense Of Christians






 






As he is trying to establish himself as “the” Christian candidate, it is understandable that Cruz would try to ingratiate himself to conservative Christians. And, unfortunately, most evangelical Christians and pastors have the same basic approach to Israel that they have to civil government. The misinterpretation of Romans 13 causes them to say, “Obey government no matter what.” And the misinterpretation of Genesis 12 causes them to say, “Support Israel no matter what.” Both of these positions are not only unscriptural, they are very dangerous to America.






 






Instead of demanding that Middle Eastern Christians “stand with Israel,” Senator Cruz should have encouraged them to stand faithful to Christ, which is the message that those folks needed and were looking for. And given Senator Cruz’s outspoken Christian profession, this is the message they thought they would hear him give. After all, why else would such a group invite him to speak in the first place?






 






When the day comes that an American Christian senator (and maybe President) will lend credence to suffering Christians in the Middle East being more loyal to the political policies of a foreign country (in this case, the United States) than to them being faithful to their Savior, Jesus Christ, demonstrates that something is VERY, VERY wrong with the religion of American Christianity.






 






There you have it. These are my preliminary thoughts on the presidential candidacy of Senator Ted Cruz. I reserve the right to adjust these thoughts, one way or the other, as I learn more.






 






P.S. Last week, some of you who receive the email version of this column had several copies of the column appear in your inbox. Please know that my office would never allow such a thing to happen if we knew it was happening and could stop it. There was some sort of malfunction in our computer system (we have tens of thousands of subscribers) that caused some people (not everyone) to receive multiple copies of the column last week. I assure you we will be watching this and will correct the problem as soon as we can. Hopefully, you will only receive one copy of this week’s column in your inbox. Thank you for your understanding and patience.






 






© Chuck Baldwin






 





Source Article from https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/173147-2015-03-26-ted-cruz-pros-and-cons.htm?EdNo=001&From=RSS



SEMI-NEWS/SEMI-SATIRE, March 22, 2015 Edition


Obama Exempts White House from Freedom of Information Act






Contending that “constant prying by the enemies of this Administration are impeding my ability to smoothly rule this country,” President Obama issued a decree exempting the White House Office of Administration from further compliance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).






Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) spokesperson Anne Weismann characterized the move as “completely out of step with the President’s supposed commitment to transparency.”






Office of Administration Director Beth Jones defended the move as “a necessary precaution against information falling into the wrong hands. This country is at war with reactionary elements who wouldn’t hesitate to abuse the freedom the law allows to embarrass and discredit the Administration. Well, President Obama isn’t about to let these rogue elements have free rein to scrutinize the inner workings of the government.”






Jones denied that the cancellation of access for persons to hostile to the President contradicts his pledge of transparency. “The windows on a home are transparent, but the owners are well-advised to draw the blinds to prevent peeping Toms from invading their privacy,” Jones asserted. “All we are doing here is drawing the blinds. The President’s friends will still be able to enjoy whatever access he deems necessary to their roles in defense of his policies.”






The Obama Administration has been the most aggressive in US history in its efforts to clamp down on information about what’s going on behind closed doors. It has prosecuted more whistle blowers and sentenced them to longer prison terms than all other presidents combined. This latest move is merely another example of its determination to conduct its business outside the view of the voters.






In related news, the Department of Justice rebuffed a subpoena for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails on the grounds that “mere suspicion that the Secretary may have used her private server as a means of concealing what she was doing is not proof. Until we see proof that she actually concealed something via this stratagem we see no need to pry into her affairs.”






WV Governor Vetoes Gun Bill






West Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have broadened the scope of concealed carry of guns by law-abiding citizens.






“The notion that the citizen is the best line of defense against crimes against himself is one I can’t support,” Tomblin said. “Citizens aren’t properly trained. Allowing them to arm themselves only complicates matters for legitimate law enforcement personnel. If both the perps and their victims are armed how will the police know who to shoot when they arrive on the scene?”






The Governor also expressed skepticism about the adage “that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” “The idea that deadly force is a victim’s best option is one I reject,” Tomblin said. “An armed victim will be tempted to start a gun fight. An unarmed victim will be forced to seek a nonviolent solution to his predicament. If the perp’s objective is robbery wouldn’t it be simpler and safer to just surrender your wallet? If the perp’s objective is rape, well that takes time and may give the police the chance to intervene before it can be fully consummated.”






The National Rifle Association is reportedly reconsidering how it vets candidates it supports in elections. “We backed this guy,” rued an NRA official requesting anonymity. “We need to do a better job of evaluating the views and intentions of candidates before we give our endorsement or financial support.”






Obama Threatens Israel






Stung by Israeli voters’ rejection of his wishes by their reelection of Prime Minister Netanyahu, US President Barack Obama ominously warned that he is weighing a change to America’s long-standing alliance with the Jewish state.






“Israel is the ‘odd man out’ in the Middle East,” Obama told Netanyahu in a post-election phone call. “Six million Jews are pitted against a billion Muslims. Based on democratic principles of majority rule, I don’t see how we can continue to side with a tiny minority against the wishes of the vast majority who would like to see Israel eliminated.”






“Maintaining an island of Jews in the midst of a sea of Muslims is a precarious endeavor,” Obama pointed out. “Life would be simpler and less contentious if Israel didn’t exist. For the sake of humanity I’ve got to reassess whether America’s continued efforts to resist Muslim desires to annihilate Israel are worth it.”






“Standing aside while a tide of Muslim forces washes over Israel is a low-risk, low-cost option that I’ve got to consider given recent events,” Obama reminded Netanyahu. “Of course, this need not happen if you can bring your views into line with my vision for world peace. Surely, paying the jizya and submitting to Islam has to be less burdensome than trying to defend yourselves against so many enemies.”






ICE Releases Another 30,000 Illegal Alien Criminals






US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that during 2014 it released another 30,000 illegal aliens with criminal records. This follows the 36,000 it released in 2013. The crimes for which these persons were responsible include homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault and more than 16,000 incidents of drunk or drugged driving. The released individuals are now free to move about the country.






In testimony before Congress, ICE Director Sarah Saldana characterized this action as “the best option we had available to us given the parameters established by President Obama. Is putting criminals back on the street bad? Yes, but what else could we do? If we deported them they’d just be roaming the streets of Mexico or some other Latin American nation.”






“The people of Latin America have already suffered enough,” Saldana argued. “Their lives are marked by profound poverty leading to malnutrition, illness, and shortened lives. Rather than further intensify this suffering, it is the President’s view that our more prosperous society can more easily bear the burden of coping with these criminal elements. We have many government programs providing sustenance for those residing in the United States. We have free medical care for those unable to afford it. And most Americans have better means to protect themselves against crime. They can insure their valuables, install burglar alarms, and can carry concealed weapons—something no Latin American government permits.”






“It should be obvious that global welfare will, on balance, be greater if the United States absorbs more of the depredations inflicted by the criminals in the population than if we selfishly try to isolate ourselves from the migration of underprivileged peoples seeking a fairer allocation of humanity’s collective wealth,” she concluded.






In related news, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee blocked legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from collecting billion of dollars in refundable tax credits to which they are not legally entitled. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich) contested the idea that these illegal payments might be wrong. “A more important question than whether these payments are or aren’t illegal is whether they are needed,” Stabenow declared. “Illegal immigrants are among the poorest of our citizens. Their moral claim on this money should override any persnickety concerns about legality.”






Democrats Torpedo Human Trafficking Bill






Legislation aimed at deterring human trafficking (kidnapping people and selling them into slavery—especially as prostitutes) was stifled by a Democratic filibuster in the US Senate this week. The offending clause in the bill, as Democrats see it, is language that would bar federal funds being used to fund abortions.






Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) explained that “inasmuch as unwanted pregnancy is an even worse fate than being sold as a sex slave we cannot abide placing any limits on a woman’s right to an abortion. A sex slave merely has to endure occasional interludes of undesired intercourse. A woman denied an abortion is forced to carry another human being inside her body for nine months—bearing all the risks and consequences, such as stretch marks that will disfigure her for the rest of her life.”






GOP Urged Not to Lose Sleep Over Possible Executive Tax Hikes






Press Secretary Josh Earnest advised Republicans “not to lose any sleep over the President using his executive power to raise taxes. First, it hasn’t happened yet. So why fret about something that may not occur?”






“Second, and even more important, if the President does decide to raise taxes there’s nothing anybody can do to stop him,” Earnest added. “The Internal Revenue Service is subordinate to his authority. If he orders them to increase the government’s take from taxpayers they will unhesitatingly obey. They most certainly won’t be swayed by anything any member of Congress or the courts might say or do in opposition.”






In related news, prospective presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested that “it may be worthwhile for us to look into the possibility of establishing reeducation camps where the nation’s political leaders could be trained to cooperate for the good of the whole. Right now, too much energy goes into fruitless partisan wrangling over policies instead of into efforts to implement them.”





Source Article from https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/172723-2015-03-20-semi-news-semi-satire-march-22-2015-edition.htm?EdNo=001&From=RSS



America's Pastors Are Doing More To Enslave Our Country Than Any Foreign Power


Having to write this column is so very frustrating. I think I’m beginning to know how the Old Testament prophets of Israel felt. And how they basically felt was ALL ALONE. Their messages were not popular, to say the least. Many of them faced, not only the ire and condemnation of the citizens of their country, but also the abuse and persecution of the established powers. And believe me, if some of the “good Christian” people who have written me the past three or four weeks had the legal power to do it, Chuck Baldwin would have already faced the same fate of the prophets of old. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.






 






For one thing, when a man such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elijah, or Micaiah delivered a message, they were drowned out by the hundreds and thousands of the king’s prophets. In one way or another, these men were on the king’s dole. They received the king’s “faith-based initiative” monies. They were invited to the king’s banquets. They received the king’s tax exemptions. They were afforded the king’s perks and privileges.






 






Therefore, it was not surprising that when a Jeremiah or Micaiah brought a message of judgment upon the land, he was drowned out in a cacophony of public rebuke by the king’s prophets. God’s prophets almost always stood ALONE.






 






And amazingly enough, the same scenario is taking place again in what is now the American Empire. (America was established and built as a constitutional republic, but now it does not remotely resemble its heritage. It has, without a shadow of a doubt, taken the form of an unaccountable, might-makes-right-hegemonic empire.) The vast majority of America’s prophets (preachers, pastors, evangelists, etc.) are directly or indirectly in the employ of the government (king). A host of them are receiving federal tax dollars directly from the federal government in the form of “faith based initiative” monies. Do you think for one minute that these pastors are going to say a peep in protest about the unlawful, unconstitutional conduct routinely taking place by the federal government? Not a chance in Hades!






 






As soon as someone goes on the public dole, for the most part, the government has successfully and thoroughly purchased their SILENCE.






 






In the second place, the vast majority of pastors and churches have voluntarily placed themselves directly under the supervision and authority of the federal government by accepting the 501c3 non-profit organization status from the Internal Revenue Service.  And by so doing, the vast majority of pastors and churches will consciously do or say NOTHING that could jeopardize that non-profit tax status. And, once again, the federal government has successfully and thoroughly purchased their SILENCE.






 






Add to the above the perks and privileges that go along with being “Caesar’s friend.” I know a little bit about what I’m talking about here.






 






Back in “the day” when I was a young up and rising star among the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, and Republican Party, I experienced my share of what it feels like to sit at the king’s table. I had personal audiences with untold congressmen and senators. I couldn’t count the number of governor’s mansions I was invited to. And I was twice invited to the White House: once to dine with Vice President George H.W. Bush, and once to meet President Ronald Reagan. Believe me, I know what it feels like to be a prophet who has been in the king’s inner chamber.






 






Of course, the other problem we have in our pulpits today is the demonic interpretation associated with Romans 13. Every Sunday all across America, the king’s prophets (puppets would be a better word) are emphatically telling their congregations to obey the civil government “no-matter-what.” Every Sunday, there are hundreds of pastors regurgitating this demonic doctrine to their people.






 






Without a doubt, America’s pastors are doing more to enslave our country than any foreign power.






 






The egregious misinterpretation of Romans 13 is a blight that is turning the most courageous champions of freedom-loving Christian men the world has ever known to some of the most sheepish, pathetic, indifferent, and milquetoast wimps in the universe. And it is the devilish misinterpretation of Romans 13 that demands Christians obey civil authorities “no-matter-what” that is responsible for it.






 






This Hitlerian teaching of Romans 13 is ubiquitous. It pours out like a rain that never stops. The vast majority of preachers, well-known and otherwise, disseminate this fallacy like clowns throwing out candy during a circus parade. The latest notable example is Franklin Graham.






 






On his Facebook page on March 12, Graham wrote the following:






 






“Listen up–Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and everybody else. Most police shootings can be avoided. It comes down to respect for authority and obedience. If a police officer tells you to stop, you stop. If a police officer tells you to put your hands in the air, you put your hands in the air. If a police officer tells you to lay down face first with your hands behind your back, you lay down face first with your hands behind your back. It’s as simple as that. Even if you think the police officer is wrong–YOU OBEY! Parents, teach your children to respect and obey those in authority. Mr. President, this is the message our nation needs to hear, and they need to hear it from you. Some of the unnecessary shootings we have seen recently might have been avoided. The Bible says to submit to your leaders and those in authority ‘because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account.'”






 






All of that sounds well and good. I, too, was taught by my father to respect and obey authority. And if a policeman points his semi-automatic handgun in my face and tells me to get on the ground, I will get on the ground for fear of my life. BUT THAT DOESN’T EXCUSE A POLICEMAN WHO GIVES UNLAWFUL ORDERS OR WHO THREATENS THE LIVES OF CITIZENS UNNECESSARILY AND ILLEGALLY.






 






I can promise you that if I am on the ground at the point of a policeman’s gun, it is NOT respect that has laid me prone on the pavement; it is FEAR. Fear for my life.






 






As I have noted before in this column, my eighty-year-old mother-in-law was pulled over for a minor traffic violation here in the State of Montana and when the officers exited their patrol car, both of them had their handguns pointed at her head. (She must have been pulled over for driving too slow.) This is the height of irresponsibility by these two police officers. And if this happened to my mother-in-law, imagine how many other senior citizens this is happening to. Talk about “public endangerment!” If one of these elderly souls fell over with a heart attack from the shock of such a thing, would the policemen accept any responsibility? Of course not. Talk about showing NO respect!






 






Mr. Graham’s comments may have been intended to teach respect for law enforcement officers, but that is NOT what his comments taught. What his comments taught is total submission to civil authorities NO MATTER WHAT. That’s the impression he gave.






 






Then Mr. Graham attempted to use the Scripture to enforce his comments. Unfortunately, he obviously doesn’t know the Scripture well enough to use an appropriate one. Maybe he felt that Romans 13 was overused (it’s not overused; it’s misused), and wanted to reinforce his position with a similar Scripture, but he failed miserably.






 






The Scriptures Mr. Graham alluded to were Hebrews 13:7, 17. Here is what they say:






 






“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” (Vs. 7)






 






“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Vs. 17)






 






Clearly, these verses have NOTHING to do with obedience to civil government. Rather, the focus is church members being submissive to their spiritual leaders (pastors, overseers, etc.) in the church. When Paul said “they watch for your souls,” he was not talking about policemen.  Ladies and gentlemen, law enforcement officers are NOT watching for your souls. Mostly, they are watching out for their own safety (they wear a gun for their safety, not yours), for their careers, and for a reason to make an arrest. That’s what policemen are mainly looking out for.






 






If he is a God-called pastor, however, he is watching out for the souls of his flock. At least, he should be. That brings up the problem that so many pastors are NOT looking after men’s souls; they are looking out for their building plans, size of staff, amount of offerings, size of congregation, and how many programs the church offers. That’s hardly looking out for men’s souls.






 






But I would love to hear Franklin Graham say to church members (since that was the focus of the verses he alluded to in his Facebook post), that no matter what the pastor tells them to do “YOU OBEY!”






 






Really? Church members should obey their pastors NO MATTER WHAT? Well, if Hebrews 13 was interpreted the same way that Romans 13 is interpreted, that is EXACTLY what Mr. Graham and the preachers of America would be promoting. I would love to see this interpretation of Hebrews 13 taught in ANY church this Sunday.






 






In Ephesians 6, Paul addresses authority in the home and in the work place. Husbands and fathers are given authority in the home, while employers are given authority in the work place. But in neither instance is the father or employer (“master”) given unlimited authority. NOT AT ALL. Fathers and employers are given jurisdictional authority to exercise their authority in such a way that does not abuse the Natural rights given to man by God.






 






Would Franklin Graham, or any other preacher in America, get up next Sunday and tell their flock that fathers and husbands should be obeyed NO MATTER WHAT? Would they teach that husbands and fathers can be abusive to their families? Must employees submit to their bosses NO MATTER WHAT? Must employees submit to being battered and intimidated? Must they allow themselves to be used for illegal or immoral purposes? Of course not. There is not a pastor in America who would dare to even suggest such a thing. And rightly so.






 






But when it comes to civil authority, when it comes to Romans 13, all bets are off. Christians must submit to civil government NO MATTER WHAT. Christians must submit to police officers NO MATTER WHAT. So why is it that only civil government has God-ordained tyrannical power? God puts family government in a superior position to civil government, yet to the average pastor and Christian today, officials within civil government have unlimited power, while a husband and father’s authority in the home is (rightly) understood to be limited, jurisdictional, and under the greater authority of God.






 






Mr. Graham is an outspoken critic of Islam. I wonder if he would spew forth the above “YOU OBEY!” message if Sharia Law was the law of the land. Had he lived in Germany at the rise of the Third Reich, would he have spewed forth the same message? Or maybe in Stalin’s Russia? And I suppose he would preach the “YOU OBEY!” message to those suffering saints in Red China who are languishing in the gulags for preaching the Gospel or for operating non-state-licensed churches contrary to China’s law enforcers.






 






Again, this constant and perpetual message of total submission to civil government “no matter what” that is pouring forth from our nation’s pulpits is doing more to enslave America than anything any foreign enemy could ever hope to do.






 






In order for us to respect law enforcers, they must act respectfully, which means THEY must respect both the law they represent and the citizens for whom they work. It takes more than a badge and a gun to earn respect.






 






Yes, honest, God-fearing folks respect the POSITION held by law enforcement officers, but there can be no respect for those individuals who use the position of law enforcer to misuse and abuse the law!






 






The examples of police abuse and the “trigger-happy-cops” syndrome are now a regular occurrence in our country . Every day in America, harmless, innocent citizens of all ages and races are subjected to police thuggery.  It may not be true, but it seems that more and more police officers have a “shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later” police-state mentality. And it is being demonstrated on the streets of America EVERY DAY.






 






I urge readers to take a few minutes to peruse through my “Emerging Police State” page on my website. You will read of only a small fraction of the accounts of police abuse taking place all the time. Here are a few of the headlines from just the past few months:






 






Wisconsin Cop Guns Down Unarmed Teenager






 






Cop Brutally Attacks 78-Year-Old For Delivering Cupcakes To Her Grandchildren






 






Video Shows Rough Treatment Of Tamir Rice’s 14-Year-Old Sister As Her Younger Brother Lay Dying






 






Cop Suspended After He Was Caught On Camera Brutally Slapping Driver Who Asked Why He Needed To Search His Car






 






Video: Cop Goes Nuts When Told “God Bless You”






 






Police Kill Georgia Grandfather During No-Knock Raid On Wrong Home






 






“I’ll Put A Round In You’re A** So Quick”: Florida Police Chief Defends Cop Who Threatened To Shoot Young Black Man Because He Filmed His Partner Throwing Him On The Ground






 






U.S. Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11






 






Cops Pull Gun On Fifth Graders Building Tree Fort






 






Gun Grabbing Cop Goes Ballistic: “I’m The Master!”






 






See my compilation of stories revealing America’s Emerging Police State here:






 






Emerging Police State






 






Believe me, folks, the stories I have compiled are only the tip of the iceberg. It is absolutely no hyperbole to say that we are witnessing the creation of a Police State right in front of our very eyes. And one of the reasons for it is the teaching and preaching of America’s pulpits to submit to civil government “no matter what,” per the misinterpretation of Romans 13.






 






This is such as major problem that my constitutional attorney son and I co-authored a blockbuster book entitled, “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.” The book goes through the entire Bible and shows unequivocally that nowhere does our Creator demand that His people submit to unlawful, oppressive authority. And nowhere in the Bible is civil government granted unconditional authority over man.






 






Order the book here:






 






Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission






 






Furthermore, I delivered four complete messages on Romans 13 that have been put on one DVD. The DVD is entitled, “The True Meaning of Romans 13.” If you prefer to watch the video messages, you can order it here:






 






The True Meaning of Romans 13 DVD






 






The Bible is replete with examples of God’s people who deliberately DISOBEYED civil government and received God’s supreme approbation. I wonder if Franklin Graham and America’s pastors are still teaching the stories of David and Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and practically every Old Testament prophet, including John the Baptist. I wonder if they are still retelling the stories (and explaining the significance of them for us today) of Simon Peter and the other apostles, including Paul, who spent about as much time in jail as out of jail for their defiance of civil authorities. And I further wonder if they have ever bothered to teach the life of Christ, which shows that He CONSTANTLY defied the authority of the Pharisees, who were acting as governing agents of the Roman Empire over Jerusalem and Judea.






 






By the way, I have a three-message DVD entitled, “Christ And The Pharisees.” Dear reader, ask yourself why you never hear your pastor talk about Christ and the Pharisees? One cannot fully understand the life of Christ and the Gospel narratives of the Bible without understanding the continual contest between Christ and the Pharisees. Watch my DVD and the next time you hear a naïve Christian friend or pastor say, “Jesus never challenged civil authority, so neither should we,” you will know how to educate your ignorant friend on the truth of Christ’s constant defiance of civil authority.






 






Order “Christ And The Pharisees” DVD here:






 






Christ And The Pharisees DVD






 






What America really needs to be hearing from our preachers today, including from Mr. Graham, is the whole counsel of God related to the fact that EVERYONE, including those in law enforcement, the U.S. military, those in Congress, and even the President of the United States, are obligated to obey the Natural and moral laws of God and the Constitution of The United States, that NO ONE is above the law–not even policemen or soldiers.






 






Why don’t our preachers exegete the words of John the Baptist to the law enforcers of his day? Like most totalitarian regimes, the law enforcers of John’s day were military soldiers. This is the way it is in most every totalitarian regime.






 






John plainly told the soldiers to “do violence to no man.” What? That’s what soldiers do. They kill people and blow up things. They are trained killers. What did John mean, “Do no violence?” He meant soldiers and law enforcers must never commit violence unjustly or unlawfully. God’s moral laws regarding killing apply to soldiers and policemen as much as they do to the everyday citizen on the street.






 






John also told them, “neither accuse any falsely.” Many soldiers and policemen have used the power of the gun and badge to illegally take people’s property or to advance their own careers by arresting people who should never have been arrested. I can give you a true personal story about this. In fact, I included that story in my message last Sunday that I wish all you would watch. The message is entitled, “When Worship Means Nothing.” And it has a lot to do with what I’m addressing in this column. Watch or order the message here:






 






When Worship Means Nothing






 






John also told the soldiers to be content with their wages. Why would he say this? Because many unscrupulous soldiers and policemen will use their position and power to exact or extort money and position from and by the innocent and defenseless. In fact, in many of today’s police departments, promotions are based on the numbers of arrests. Arrest quotas are even often required of officers. Advancement is often determined by the number of arrests an officer makes. Thus, the officer is turned into a state revenuer; he is working for career advancement on the backs of (often) innocent people. Truly, if we released all of the people from prison who genuinely do not belong there, we would end the prison overcrowding problem instantly.






 






How many police officers carry untraceable handguns, called “throw down” weapons? These guns are carried by officers for the purpose of planting them on someone whom the officer may have just shot and killed but who was unarmed. So, to cover and justify the killing, a “throw down” weapon is placed near the victim so the officer can claim self-defense. How often does this take place? Far more than most of us want to admit. And hardly ever will a policeman “rat” on his partner. So, the crime is never accounted for. And, again, there is no telling how often this goes on.






 






John the Baptist was addressing all of these sorts of things in Luke 3:14. When is the last time you heard your pastor, or Franklin Graham, for that matter, deliver these very relevant principles from Luke 3:14 to the people of America? I would bet NEVER.






 






In the United States–a once-free republic–soldiers were absolutely forbidden to engage in domestic law enforcement. No more. Today, our local and State police more and more have the function and form of military units. They wear military garb; they use military weapons; they have military vehicles, tanks, helicopters, etc., and they employ military tactics. Most of our police and sheriff’s SWAT teams are trained by U.S. Special Forces military units, i.e. Green Berets, SEALS, Rangers, etc.






 






Of course, we respect the POSITION of peace officer. But it is also incumbent upon the peace officer to respect the citizens for whom he works and the Constitution that he is sworn to uphold. Most people normally behave respectfully when they are treated respectfully. Of course, there are exceptions. But even then, the onus is on the one who volunteered to put on a badge and place him or herself in between the law-abiding and the lawless.






 






No, Mr. Graham, the Bible does NOT command us to obey everything civil government may tell us to do. Our country was founded on the principle of lawful resistance to unlawful authority. When British troops demanded of our forebears, “YOU OBEY!”, our brave Christian pastors and laymen responded with the “shot heard ’round the world.”






 






Of course, I’m going to lie face down on the ground when a cop is pointing a gun at me. But that, by itself, doesn’t make it right. And if it did happen to me (and he didn’t kill me in the process), you can bet I would use every available legal recourse to make sure that that officer never put on a badge again.






 






But the problem is, that cop probably goes to church somewhere where he has NEVER heard a message from God’s Word regarding his responsibility, under God, to conduct himself in a manner that God demands of HIM. All he has heard is what he heard Franklin Graham say to us citizens, “YOU OBEY!” And his police training is coming straight out of the Department of Homeland Security, which is hell-bent on turning the United States into a Police State. So, the good officer has heard absolutely nothing about his duty before God to not abuse the power of his position, to respect the constitutional rights of our citizens, and to submit to the moral and Natural laws of God relative to his position as a law enforcer.






 






Again, this is so very frustrating!






 






P.S. Once again, I am in touch with a group of patriot Christians near BRADENTON/SARASOTA, FLORIDA, who very much desire to start a new non-501c3 fellowship. In fact, I am scheduled to conduct a Liberty Church Project conference for these folks on April 29-30 at the Hilton Garden Inn SARASOTA/BRADENTON Airport hotel. If you live nearby, I would love to see you at this conference. Furthermore, if you live in or near BRADENTON/SARASOTA, FLORIDA, and would like to join this group, here is an email that you can use to connect with them.






The email address is: libertyfellowshipflorida@gmail.com  






© Chuck Baldwin





Source Article from https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/172608-2015-03-19-america-39-s-pastors-are-doing-more-to-enslave-our.htm?EdNo=001&From=RSS



Why Luke Skywalker's binary sunset may be real after all








Excerpt from csmonitor.com











Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AscensionEarth2012/~3/asggcwHZ0ro/why-luke-skywalkers-binary-sunset-may.html



Scientism and the Police State




Scientism is another contentious topic that I think can shed some light on the emergence of the police state. It is one of the many angles from which we can explore the problem of police corruption, abuse and violence in order to gather a bigger picture of issues so complex that they cannot be explained without deconstructing our entire social fabric. Unfortunately, a discussion of scientism and its problems almost always degenerates into misleading narratives constructed from opposition factors within a false dichotomy.


Scientism CentralScientism CentralScientism CentralScientism is the extremely unscientific worldview which claims that only science can provide meaningful answers to inquiries about nature, reality and existence. Its adherents attempt to stretch scientific methods and findings beyond their realm of epistemological relevancy in order to validate their own beliefs, convince others or to replace reason itself with a dogmatic ideology to further their agenda.


While the scientific method is itself a brilliant and immensely useful tool for answering many types of questions, even science or empiricism cannot be used to validate claims of its methodological superiority. The scientific method is predicated on philosophical suppositions and logical systems that precede formal science both historically and and intellectually. Order of operations. Non-empirical methods of discovery such as art and spirituality are similarly branches of philosophical inquiry. The claim that any single branch of philosophy provides the entirety of truth, whether it be science or religion or any other, betrays a fundamental ignorance of the greatest knowledge of all. Absolute objective truth is not accessible to humans. Truth is an ever-evolving journey that seeks new evidence, questions and answers, and good answers are the kind which that are sensible and polite enough to concede when they have been replaced by better ones.


The criticism of scientism is not the same as being ‘anti-science’. In fact, it is in keeping with the scientific method and spirit that we remain vigilant that such a powerful tool not become sullied and weighed down by dogma or allowed to be abused by the select few for maligned purposes. Already my explanation of scientism and pre-emptive attempts to quell the automated reactions from true believers of all ideologies feels too long and apologetic. Before you dismiss the problem of Scientism outright without trying to discover its complicity in the police state, please take some time to read the links scattered throughout this post, so that you might possibly benefit from lines of inquiry which you may not yet fully understand.


So, how does scientism contribute to the police state, then?


Scientism PoliceScientism PoliceScientism PoliceAs an ideology, scientism often suggests some basic axioms which creep into our thinking of all things. Since scientism tries to bend the scientific method into intellectual authoritarianism, it has become a cultural reinforcement for the dangerous and untenable idea of the superiority of systems over individuals. Because science requires interactions between scientists and a larger scientific community, it often utilizes systemic or institutionalized paradigms. And because these paradigms have shown some pragmatic success in helping to create human technologies and knowledge which benefits us, the adherents of scientism often come to believe that human civilization itself requires a similar method of organization. While this is arguably and demonstrably untrue, the scientismist projects the successes of empiricism outside of its realm into the study of nature and onto human societies. The scientismist often believes that the same formally rigid structures which brought about scientific knowledge is applicable to all phenomena.


The police state is itself one of those formal rigid structures. But because human beings exercise free will, the structure is inadequate to respond to a subject which does not act predictably. Dealing with human beings requires that we consider every human as an individual and not just some statistical aggregate. Yet because our policing institutions have begun to incorrectly model themselves after empirical disciplines, individuals are treated as categorical subjects. Police attempt to circumvent the difficult job of ascertaining the entire situation and particulars of an individual by categorizing them. This makes police work easier and reduces risks to law enforcement officers, while at the same time creating a corrupt and abusive power structure which relies on profiling and criminal assumptions that often target the innocent. Scientism has reinforced our ideology that only strict methods are useful and this ideology has become a building block of the modern police state.


Scientism PropagandaScientism PropagandaScientism PropagandaScientism also relates to problems of propaganda, even when it is often unintentional. In the last few decades we have seen numerous television shows, movies and other media presentations which highlight forensic police work. In truth, forensics is only part of building a legal criminal case. The best of forensic evidence will not hold any weight in an honorable court without some kind of motive accompanying it. Yet we have come to see these quirky scientists who work behind the scenes as the central mediator of justice in our systems. Because their weapon of choice is the scientific method, and because we have perverted method into ideology, we assume that science has provided reasonable checks and balances in our legal system to prevent abuse and corruption. This simply is not true. While law enforcement contains an element of science, it is itself not scientific. When we credit it with the accuracy of the scientific method, we open ourselves up to a blind ignorance of how both policing and science work.


Scientism HumorScientism HumorScientism HumorScientism has contributed to some other false assumptions that have become pandemic in our culture. One of these assumptions is how we have distorted the concept of ‘proof’. Proof, as it has come to be used in most discussions, is an irrational ideology. The only disciplines in which the actual concept of proof applies are closed axiomatic systems, such as logic and mathematics, where there can be no new information. In human activities, investigations and all throughout nature there is always an abundance of new information which could change what we know about a phenomenon.


The beauty of science is that its claims are made to be falsifiable, which means that the goal is to keep looking for deeper truth and not settle on a particular hypothesis or theory as the final answer. Yet somehow the cultural ideology of scientism has elevated the concept of proof to mean some kind of absolute and final objective truth. Such things do not exist in science or nature. Truth is a continuous journey of improving our knowledge. By distorting the concept of proof as has happened via scientism, we have erroneously come to believe that we have the ability to make final answers to all questions. Aside from being illogical and false, this is highly unscientific.


And yet the law enforcement system has come to rely on this faulty concept in many ways. We are asked by the police state to provide proof or told that proof is not on our side. Yet this concept of proof being appealed to does not apply to law enforcement or its methods. By usurping this meaningless concept, police and the cultural ideologies surrounding them have come to a sort of religious faith in the righteousness of law enforcement. This faith causes people to not question the police and their activities; which inevitably leads to a sort of authority in which abuse and corruption can go unnoticed and unchecked. However, it is within the legal system that we are able to find an example of the slipperiness of ‘proof.’ ‘Proven beyond a reasonable doubt,’ is a statement that verifies the subjectivity of proof. A legal system which tries to objectify scientistic concepts for its own purposes, while admitting the impossibility of objectivity, is one that bears much closer inspection.


Scientism and the StateScientism and the StateScientism and the StateMany other concepts which are either used by or as justification for the police state are also social distortions. For instance, we are often given statistical information as a way of justifying the follies of police from profiling to department expansions. The most common way this is done is by using statistics as prediction models. Statistical analysis and its prediction models are not even very scientific. The number of times an outcome has or has not happened in the past has no influence whatsoever on present probabilities. A probability is determined by the number of possible outcomes, not on statistical inference of prior outcomes. Once again, nature is not a closed system, so past information does not illustrate or influence a current phenomena. These statistical misconceptions are themselves highly illogical and incompatible with empiricism, and yet law enforcement at every level constantly uses these statistics to create fear and justify its activities, even to the exception of rational and ethical considerations.


Yet another false construct from scientistic thinking is that of predeterminism, which is the idea that external forces fate us to preordained thoughts and behaviors. Predeterminism was the basis of the Protestant movement and was largely considered a merely religious concept until twentieth century scientistic world views like physicalism, naturalism and materialism began to become influential in public spheres. From the very onset, predeterminism was used by law enforcement as method of ‘preventing crime’ by acting pre-emptively against those whose biological or cultural make-up allegedly put them at a higher than average risk for criminal behavior.


Science BonerScience BonerScience BonerIn the late nineteenth-century such fallacious thinking was used to illustrate that phrenology could predict the emergence of criminals. Phrenology is the (thankfully) defunct idea that the shape of our skulls can be used to determine deep truths about individual human beings. While phrenology is no longer practiced by police, similar tactics are still used, even when they are officially unallowed. Profiling, stereotyping and the use of race and class to determine possible criminality are all widespread practices. Even when such practices are deemed institutionally impermissible, they still affect the thinking of individual officers who use pre- deterministic shortcuts in everyday policing. The unfortunate ideology of predeterminism is endemic to both Protestantism and Scientism. The scientistic and philosophical justifications for corruption and abuse by police are part of the problem of scientism.


The problem of scientism contributes to a grand oversimplification in our thinking. It provides shortcut rationalities and other inanities that bleed into our larger cultural ideologies. Scientism is a force which serves to create anti-intellectual paradigms in which we ignore larger truths in deference to a single method of knowing and/or understanding our world. By closing off our thinking and narrowing it into blind faith, we lose track of the bigger picture of our existence. This leads us to default on our ethical, moral and other subjective forms of knowledge which would otherwise provide checks and balances on a legal system run amok.


Getting High With CarlGetting High With CarlGetting High With CarlScientism is a problem for humanity. It has become the new religion of the state. It is a problem that has penetrated every corner of our social, economic and political existence. It is a contributing factor in the unreasonable thinking by which our police state is being constructed. One need not be anti-science to see the problem. In fact, those who truly appreciate science and its successes and possibilities should be vigilant in protecting the method from being perverted into irrational and dogmatic ideology. Not just for the sake of intellectual vigor and truth, but because scientism inadvertently creates real-world problems, like the police state with its growing corruption and abuse.


JoinCopBlockNetworkJoinCopBlockNetworkJoinCopBlockNetwork






Source Article from http://www.copblock.org/116401/scientism-and-the-police-state/