Kinetic Military Action in Syria: Stop Pretending that Damascus Will Not Be the Next Benghazi

by Gerard Emershaw

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. A despotic secular leader of an Islamic country is accused of murdering his own people during a civil war. Americans who were still angry over being lied into war in Iraq are not eager for another war. A future head of the Natonal Security Council, the next likely POTUS, and a future ambassador to the UN begin propagating ridiculous propaganda about the despotic secular Islamic leader giving Viagra to his soliders so that they could rape civilians. The United States intervenes unconstitutionally and engages in “kinetic military action” which involves launching Tomahawk missiles—cruise missiles which are tipped with depleted uranium and are properly considered Geneva Conventions violating radioactive poison gas weapons. Dozens of civilians are killed in the American led NATO attacks. The United States succeeds in helping the bloodthirsty Jihadist rebels overthrow the secular tyrant. These Jihadist rebels—who are closely affiliated with al Qaeda—engage in genocidal revenge killings against black citizens who fought on the side of the secular tyrant. Thanks to the United States, the al Qaeda flag flies over a major city in the nation. A year later four Americans are murdered in an attack by some of the very Jihadists that the United States supported in the civil war.

Sound familiar, neocons? Benghazi? Ring a bell? You know, the tragic incident that resulted from blockback that was created by American invervention in Libya? Do me a favor, neocons. Put down your copies of Machiavelli, Plato, and Strauss. Stop making goo goo eyes at that autographed photo of Trotsky that you bought on eBay. Stop pretending that you’re conservatives. Stop thinking about how much you love the Bismarkian welfare state and Keynesian economics. Just listen.

The warmongering neo-Wilsonian President Obama is about to violate the Constitution by declaring war on Syria without the permission of Congress. Just as he did in Libya. He is going to justify it as a humanitarian action against a tyrant who is killing his own people. Just like he did in Libya. He is going to help an al Qaeda allied rebel group topple a secular tyrant. Just like he did in Libya.

In between trying to convince real conservatives that Trotsky was Barry Goldwater with weird hair and glasses and that Irving Kristol was an actual free market capitalist, the neoconservatives will ask: “What could possibly go wrong?” They will say that President Obama must attack Syria in order to not appear weak on the world stage. They will say that President Obama must send a tough message to Iran and that attacking Syria will accomplish just that. Constituton be damned! They will admit that Iraqis were not killing Kuwaiti babies in incubators prior to the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs or conspire to carry out the 9/11 attacks, and that black Libyan soldiers were not using Viagra to rape Libyan women. But they will claim that Syria is different. They will swear that this time the U.S. citizenry can trust them. It’s just not possible that the Jihadists would lie about Assad using chemical weapons. It’s not possible that it was a false flag attack carried about by the Jihadist rebels. Friends of al Qaeda would never do anything nefarious like that.

The neocons will promise that Syria will be completely different from Libya. The Jihadists will send us Christmas cards and flowers for helping them overthrow Assad. These Jihadists are “good al Qaeda.” Sort of like “good cholesterol.” That is the Straussian noble lie which they will tell. When the al Qaeda flag flies over Damascus, they will pretend to be shocked. When Syrian rebels commit atrocities against innocent citizens, they will make excuses. When these Jihadists begin ethnically cleansing Syria of Christians, they will say it's just a few bad apples doing it. When Syria becomes a training ground for al Qaeda, they will pretend that nobody could have seen it coming and claim that not having Assad around anymore somehow trumps that. They will claim that somehow having yet another Jihadist neighbor will benefit Israel.

All those so called conservatives who follow neocon RINOs like McCain, Graham, and King and neo-progressive warmongers like Obama, Kerry, and Rice and support American military action in Syria forfeit the right to express righteous indignation over what happened in Benghazi. All those so called conservatives who think it is okay for President Obama to violate the Constitution by unilaterally declaring war in Syria forfeit their right to complain next time the President violates the Constitution in order to carry out some domestic policy which they oppose—whether it be on immigration, abortion, health care, gay rights, taxation, etc.  

What could possibly go wrong? Unless you count the likelihood of blowback against American citizens in the form of Jihadist terrorism, then nothing. But if you support American military action against Assad, do not pretend you did not see it coming when blowback occurs.

President Obama on Not Overreacting to Terrorism

by Gerard Emershaw

While yucking it up with NBC's Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show," President Obama said:

One thing I've tried to do as President is not overreact, but make sure that as much as possible the American people understand that there are genuine risks out there. What's great about what we've seen with America over the last several years is how resilient we are. So after the Boston bombing, for example, the next day folks were out there, they're going to ball games. They are making sure that we're not reacting in a way that somehow shuts us down. And that's the right reaction. Terrorists depend on the idea that we're going to be terrorized. And we're going to live our lives. And the odds of people dying in a terrorist attack obviously are still a lot lower than in a car accident, unfortunately.

By "unfortunately," President Obama meant, of course, that it is unfortunate that so many Americans are killed in automobile accidents, but it is not difficult to imagine that it was a Freudian slip and that he was expressing that he is upset that more Americans aren't killed by terrorists. 

President Obama claims that he has not overreacted to the threat of terrorism. He hasn't overreacted? He has continued with and enlarged President Bush's neocon plan to turn the United States into a police state. President Obama has continued the Stasi provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, continued and enlarged Bush's NSA warrantless spying program, signed the NDAA which makes the United States into a battleground and gives the government the power to declare any American an unlawful combatant and detain him or her indefinitely, and declared that he has the power to kill Americans without due process. In addition, President Obama has broadened the Orwellian War on Terror by widening the war into Libya, Yemen, and—perhaps soon—Syria. 

President Obama has the NSA monitoring the communications of Americans, yet he does not consider this to be “overreacting.” He won't even admit that it is a “domestic spying program”:

We don't have a domestic spying program. What we do have are some mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an email address that we know is connected to some sort of terrorist threat. And that information is useful. But what I've said before I want to make sure I repeat, and that is we should be skeptical about the potential encroachments on privacy. None of the revelations show that government has actually abused these powers, but they're pretty significant powers.

President Obama plays a “Newspeak” word game by claiming that the NSA spying programs are simply “mechanisms” and not “a domestic spying program.” He also attempts to portray himself as a civil libertarian by claiming to be “skeptical about the potential encroachments on privacy.” He is also quick to point out that there is no proof that the government has abused the powers of the NSA spying leviathan. Of course, the reason for this is that these programs are top secret and those who dare even reveal that they exist must live in exile in order to avoid being railroaded into federal prison on bogus espionage charges. 

While President Obama fully believes that Edward Snowden should be dragged in chains before a criminal court and forced to answer these bogus espionage charges, he toots his own horn as a defender of whistleblowers:

I can tell you that there are ways, if you think that the government is abusing a program, of coming forward. In fact, I, through executive order, signed whistleblower protection for intelligence officers or people who are involved in the intelligence industry. So you don’t have to break the law. You don’t have to divulge information that could compromise American security. You can come forward, come to the appropriate individuals and say, look, I’ve got a problem with what’s going on here, I’m not sure whether it’s being done properly. If, in fact, the allegations are true, then he didn’t do that. And that is a huge problem because a lot of what we do depends on terrorists networks not knowing that, in fact, we may be able to access their information.

The fact that President Obama was able to claim to be a friend to whistleblowers and say it with a straight face indicates that he may have missed his calling as a Hollywood actor—or as a spy. The truth is that President Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. How can anyone believe that whistleblowers can properly inform Americans of the abuses of the surveillance state through the official channels of which the President speaks? Does anyone believe that if Mark Felt—a.k.a. “Deep Throat”—had simply expressed his concerns to J. Edgar Hoover instead of leaking information to Woodward and Bernstein that the machinations of the Nixon administration would ever have been revealed? Does anyone believe that if Edward Snowden had simply expressed his concerns about the unconstitutional NSA spying programs to his boss that we would be talking about the issue now? President Obama provides bogus protections to lip service whistleblowers who are only pretending to blow the whistle on government corruption. Real whistleblowers like Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden will be thrown in prison by the Obama administration.

While one might be tempted to give President Obama credit for admitting that more Americans die in automobile crashes than die in terrorist attacks, his admission was true but misleading. According to the National Security Council, approximately 36,200 Americans died in car accidents in 2012. Thus, up to 36,199 Americans could have died in terrorist attacks last year, and President Obama's statement to Jay Leno would still be true. The truth is that far fewer than 36,199 Americans have died in terrorist attacks per year. In 2011, 17 Americans were killed worldwide by terrorists. However, a comparable number of Americans were crushed to death by their televisions or their furniture that year.

Since 9/11, terrorist attacks have killed a grand total of three Americans within the United States. This number increases to sixteen if one includes the Fort Hood shootings—which still seems more a matter of an unstable federal employee who happened to be a fundamentalist Muslim going “postal” than a premeditated terror attack. Why didn't President Obama point this out? Why didn't the President tell the American public that one is 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist? Why didn't he tell the American public that one is 9 times more likely to choke to death on one's own vomit than to die at the hands of a terrorist? So far this year, more Americans have been killed in the United States by toddlers (5) than by terrorists (3). Why didn't President Obama say “the odds of people dying in a terrorist attack obviously are still a lot lower than being fatally shot by a toddler, unfortunately”?

If the actions of the Obama administration both at home and abroad concerning the War on Terror are not overreacting, then it would be frightening to see what overreaction would look like. If the NSA spying is not a “spying program,” then it would be frightening to see what an actual “spying program” would look like.

The United States and Russia: What's to Talk About?

by Gerard Emershaw

President Obama has decided to pull out of a planned one-on-one summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow next month. This marks a dangerous turn in relations between the White House and Kremlin. The Wall Street Journal and many other mainstream sources claim that Obama's snub of Putin is due to Russia granting temporary asylum to whistleblower Edward Snowden. Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart claims that the snub is due to Russia's insistence that it will enforce its homophobic anti-gay laws during the Winter Olympics in 2014 in Sochi.

Regardless of why President Obama canceled the summit with President Putin, it is a major mistake. President Obama—like most presidents since McKinley—loves wielding powers that are not granted to the president in the Constitution. Whether it's declaring war or assassinating American citizens with drones, modern presidents love to act like Caesar. One of the few powers granted to the commander-in-chief in the Constitution is the power to make treaties. Thus, the President has the power to meet with foreign leaders as the sole representative of the United States. While Congress has the responsibility to confirm any treaties that the President makes, foreign diplomacy mostly rests with the executive branch.

Some may argue that not meeting with Putin is no big deal. What are the chances that some big agreement will come from the summit? What is the real harm if Barry and Vlad do not have a face-to-face chat in September?

The truth is that it is a big deal. The Cold War has only been over for two decades. While this may seem like a long time, Putin's belicosity and Obama's aloofness could be just the combination that again freezes American-Russian relations and begins a new Cold War. Putin has acted as if that is what he wants for much of his time in the Kremlin. Obama seems to enjoy “kinetic military action,” so maybe he would also enjoy a Cold War.

There are five very good reasons why President Obama should meet with President Putin as often as possible.

1. Syria

In 1914, problems in the seemingly insignificant country of Serbia ignited World War I—which lasted four years, led to the mobilization of more than 70 million military personnel from more than twenty of the world's most powerful nations, and killed over 9 million combatants. Syria is just the kind of insignificant nation which could ignite a war between the United States and Syria.

Russia is one of the staunchest allies of Bashar al-Assad's Stalinist Ba'athist Party in Damascus. The United States is arming the Jihadist Syrian rebels which includes elements of al Qaeda in its ranks. Russia has long enjoyed strong relations with Syria. Russia's only Mediterranean military base is in Syria. Russia's exports to Syria are worth over $1 billion per year, and its investments in Syria are worth over $20 billion. The United States, in contrast, has no real significant interest in Syria. Syria's petroleum industry accounts for just a drop in the bucket of world production. A Jihadist-dominated government in Syria is likely to be a greater threat to the United States and allies like Israel than the Stalinist paper tiger al-Assad.

The United States is well advised to take a non-interventionist approach in Syria. Unfortunately, President Obama loves nothing more than to take a Wilsonian approach. But instead of “making the world safe for democracy,” President Obama tends to make the world safe for radical and violent Islamic fundamentalism as he has already done in Libya. Given that President Obama seems fully committed to aiding al Qaeda-friendly elements in Syria, it is even more essential that President Obama meet early and often with President Putin. The effects that can potentially be caused by the violent and foolhardy interactions of two such despotic and arrogant leaders in a civil war are as dangerous as can be. Syria is even more Podunk than Cuba was in the 1960s. Therefore, it is just the sort of place that could cause the next Cuban Missile Crisis type situation.

2. Nuclear Arms

Neoconservative and neo-progressive wonks have all been quaking in their boots for years over the possibility of Iran eventually developing or acquiring a single nuclear weapon. Well, Russia still has 8,420 nuclear weapons. Of these, an estimated 1,720 are operational, 2,700 are in storage, and 4,000 are “retired, awaiting dismantlement.”

Taking every possible step to ensure that Russia dismantles as many of these weapons as possible is in the best interests of the United States given that Russia's weapons actually do pose an existential threat to the United States and her allies. Allowing Snowden, anti-gay Russian laws, Obama's pride, or anything else to get in the way of diplomatic discussion between the United States and Russia on the issue of nuclear arms is nothing short of insanity.

3. The cost of a new Cold War

The United States is approximately $17 trillion in debt. Its military budget is already an unsustainable $865 billion. Even with no true superpower rival, the United States insists on spending more on its military than the next 13 nations combined. What if President Putin decided to reignite the Cold War? He has been trying to gin up a new Cold War for some time now. How could the United States afford a new Cold War? Sure, the Military-Industrial Complex and the neocon chickenhawks would adore a new Cold War, but how can the American people possibly afford one?

4. Trade

American trade with Russia in 2012 consisted of nearly $11 billion in exports and nearly $30 billion in imports. Endangering so much trade would certainly be detrimental to the United States economy as well as the world economy. Russia has a population of over 140 million people. While there is some disagreement over the numbers, most agree that the Russian middle class is growing. It would be far better for the United States to treat these middle class Russians as potential customers for American businesses than to treat them again as potential targets for American weapons of mass destruction. What the American and Russian economies can both use is even more free trade between the two nations. The last thing that they need is another Cold War. Despite what crazy Keynesians might believe, war—whether “hot” or “cold”—is not good for a nation's economy. What is good for the economy is the production of goods that consumers—whether in Saint Petersburg, Russia or St. Petersburg, Florida—wish to buy.

5. Oil

It is a crying shame that an advanced space age and computer age civilization like the human race powers itself with the remains of dead plants and animals—a.k.a. oil, petroleum, "black gold," Texas tea, etc. Nevertheless, since the world is so dependent on oil, it is a good idea that the United States remain friendly with as many petroleum producing nations as possible. It is unlikely that Americans will support many more "humanitarian" regime-changing, nation-building enterprises in oil producing nations. Plus, unless the neocons and neo-progressives fancy a war with Canada, Mexico, or Norway, there simply are not that many petroleum exporting nations that the United States has not already waged a war of aggression against. The United States needs cheap oil, and Russia has it. Russia is one of the world's largest oil producers. Having cordial relations with as many oil producing nations as possible is the best way to ensure that cheap oil is available as long as possible as the world nears "peak oil."

Who Is the Evil Empire?

by Gerard Emershaw

I am a child of the Cold War. I was born during the late stages of the Vietnam War. During the month of my birth Nixon was visiting China—most likely in an attempt to prevent a robust Sino-Russian Communist Alliance against the West. My generation shivered in fear at the possibility of nuclear war as presented in films like The Day After and Threads. We hoped that Sting was correct in believing that nuclear war would not occur because the Russians loved their children, too. Despite dangerously close calls, NATO and the Warsaw Pact never engaged in global thermonuclear war.

Days after my high school graduation, the remnants of the Berlin Wall was demolished. By the end of my first sophomore semester at university, the Soviet Union officially ceased operation. The End of the Cold War brought with it so much possibility. With no more fear of World War III breaking out between the East and West, swords would be beaten into ploughshares. The American people would receive the “peace dividend” that they had earned. With war no longer a likely possibility, money would be spent for peaceful purposes instead of feeding the hunger of the greedy Military-Industrial Complex. The national debt would be tamed. Taxes would be reduced. But a funny thing happened on the way to the peace dividend. After a short period of “New World Order” where “humanitarian” military action was carried out in places such as the former Yugoslavia, the neoconservative War on Terror began after 9/11.

On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Reagan delivered his famous “Evil Empire” speech before an audience of Evangelical Christians in Orlando, Florida. While the speech was at times fascistic with its eerie theocratic flourishes, when the President spoke of the evil of the Soviet collectivist state, there was a power that can only emanate from truth:

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness—pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

Make no mistake, the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire. It starved its people and tyrannized them by locking them in a police state behind the Iron Curtain. The Soviet leaders denied their people the most basic natural rights including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those who attempted to exercise such rights often found themselves tossed in Gulags in places such as Siberia.

Over twenty years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia is still essentially an evil collectivist nation. Vlad Putin is the head of corrupt and totalitarian government in a one-party state. Freedom House rates Russia as “not free.” While Russia has gradually moved from communism to fascism, its economy is still largely controlled. Heritage has ranked Russia's economy as the 139^th freest in the world and rated its economy as “mostly unfree.”

The United States still possesses more economic and social freedom than Russia ever has or likely ever will. However, that is not the point. The optimistic youth of my generation assumed that the end of the Cold War would mean that the United States would remain a beacon of freedom and the former Soviet Union and her former satellites would become more free. Perhaps Russia would never be as free as the United States, but it would be free.

Unfortunately, the opposite occurred. Despite having “won” the Cold War, the United States has become more totalitarian. The United States is looking more and more like the Soviet Union or Stasi East Germany during the Cold War. If the United States won the Cold War, then how did the American people begin to lose their freedom?

During the Cold War when the Soviets had countless nuclear missiles aimed at the United States—and posed a genuine existential threat to the nation—Americans were free. Constitutional rights were largely respected by the government. Today there is no similar existential threat to the United States. As bad as foreign terrorism is, it is a relatively minor threat. Increased vigilance since 9/11 also make such attacks less likely to succeed—even without totalitarian measures such as the PATRIOT Act in place.

The Soviet Union could have destroyed the United States within hours, yet the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton mostly respected the natural rights of Americans. Of course, the surveillance state of the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other federal spy agencies were already getting dangerous—as the Church Committee Report detailed—but there was no true sense that totalitarianism in the United States was just around the corner. There was no claim by the federal government that it could indefinitely detain American citizens or simply assassinate them without due process. Back in the 1980s if someone would have laid out a case in which a whistleblower—who revealed details of clandestine spying programs against the citizens of his own nation—had fled his country just ahead of criminal charges being filed against him and had been granted temporary asylum in another nation, just about everyone would have assumed that the whistleblower was Soviet and that the nation offering asylum was the United States. Strange how different the truth is in the Snowden case.

Every day it seems that the United States moves closer to totalitarianism. It feels like Americans are frogs being boiled slowly in one big oppressive soup. While many complain about this, nobody seems to be doing anything about it. As long as there are ample “bread and circuses”—pop culture, television, the cinema, social networks, the internet, professional sports, etc.—there will be no European-style demonstrations or violence in the streets. The sheeple will just continue to allow themselves to be herded by the collectivist wolves.

Aside from the occasional political champion of liberty—whether it be a Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Ron Wyden, etc.—nobody in the political establishment dares speak out against the status quo of the single American welfare/warfare surveillance state party. And those who dare do so are labelled “whacko birds” or “unAmerican” or “isolationist.” They are accused of having a “pre-9/11”mentality that is no longer appropriate. In this “Post-Constitutional” World, the Constitution is viewed by the powers that be as an archaic curiosity at best and as a suicide pact at worst.

The brave and bold Americans who won independence from the British Crown, tamed the West, stormed the beaches at Normandy and at Iwo Jima to defeat fascism, and endured the long Cold War to prevail over communism were now nothing but trembling cowards. Wimps who needed to be protected from nameless, faceless, “Islamo-fascists” in caves in Pakistan. “Live free or die” and “better dead than red” became “whatever it takes” to protect us. Americans would give up any and all freedom to be protected from terrorists who probably did not even exist. Even if there were as many terrorists as the government claimed, the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were so remote as to not even be worth thinking about.

The strongest and deepest roots of the new American “Evil Empire” are the progressive ideas of President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was essentially a fascist before the fascists were. Many media sources have rightly compared the neo-progressive President Barack Obama to Woodrow Wilson. The neoconservatives themselves have compared their outlook to that of Woodrow Wilson. Neocon Max Boot has characterized the Neo-Trotskyite position of neoconservatism as “HardWilsonianism.”

As a result of essentially only having two wings of the same political war and police state party—who differ only on “wedge” issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.—the United States has gotten continuous war abroad and a growing Orwellian police state at home.

As long as the American people continue to be more Milquetoast than manly and more Dorris Day than John Wayne, they will live under the new American Evil Empire. As long as they are such wimps that they believe that martial law in a major formerly red blooded American city—one of the birth places of the American revolution—and house to house police searches are the proper response to find a single criminal suspect who had just barely passed puberty, then tyranny will prevail.

Allowing the United States to become totalitarian is to dishonor every American who fought bravely to keep Americans free and to preserve the Constitution. Not only accepting but demanding a police state as so many Americans have done is to spit in the faces of the Founders, the “doughboys,” the “dogfaces,” the “GI Joes,” etc. It is to do a grave disservice to Washington, Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and every other American who risked his or her life for freedom.

Perhaps in the end, freedom is only for the brave. Cowards are more likely to sit comfortably and ignore the growth of totalitarianism as long as they can update their Facebook profiles, watch reality television, drink beer, eat chicken wings, and cheer on their favorite sports teams without having to worry about being inconvenienced with another terrorist attack.

Nietzsche has famously warned:

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.

 

 In fighting and defeating so many monsters, the United States government has itself become a monster. It has become an Evil Empire nearly as bad as many that it has fought. However, an Evil Empire is only possible in the United States as long as Americans allow it. Will we look up from our Twitter timelines, NFL games, “Real Housewives” episodes, or whatever else is stealing away our attention and do something about it? Or did so many patriots for so long act in vain? Is totalitarianism just the natural order of things?

The Most Fascistic Film You've Never Seen

by Gerard Emershaw

1933 marked the release of Gabriel Over the White House, a bizarre, interesting, dangerous, and yet entertaining film directed by veteran director and former animator Gregory La Cava. This little known film is best described as a Depression-era “Anti-Atlas Shrugged” that was filmed long before Ayn Rand presented her best known ideas. Gabriel Over the White House is part fantasy, part rom com, and part cold blooded fascist propaganda.

Adapted by screenwriter Casey Wilson—who had written the 1925 adaptation of Ben Hur and the 1935 version of Mutiny on the Bounty—from a novel by British novelist T.F. Tweed, Gabriel Over the White House was co-produced by progressive publisher William Randolph Hearst—who had, of course, been the inspiration for Citizen Kane. Hearst was a former Democratic Congressman and unsuccessful candidate for New York Governor. He was most famous for his “yellow” journalism which played a strong role in successfully agitating for an American war with Spain in the late nineteenth century. Hearst was a major supporter of FDR and the New Deal.

Gabriel Over the White House can be described as a fascist's fantasy of what the FDR presidency should be like. Filmed during the 1932 election, the film was released on March 31, 1933—less than a month after Franklin D. Roosevelt's inauguration.

The film stars character actor Walter Huston as newly elected American President Judson Hammond. Huston was an energetic and youthful 50 at the time. He would go on to win an Oscar for his unforgettable work as the old codger in Treasure of the Sierra Madre in 1949 and to be nominated for Oscars for Dodsworth (1937), The Devil and Daniel Webster (1942), and Yankee Doodle Dandy (1943). Huston's dynamic yet subtle performance carries the film. Gabriel Over the White House also stars Franchot Tone—who would be nominated for an Oscar three years earlier for his lead role in Mutiny on the Bounty—as the President's secretary and closest confidante.

Gabriel Over the White House opens with President Judson Hammond being sworn into office. It immediately becomes clear that Hammond is the typical politician. He owes favors to those who put him into office and is more beholden to his political contributors and his party than he is to the people or the Constitution. He soon explains that he cannot be an idealist because it is the political party that calls the shots. In these early scenes with his slicked back hair, Huston's Hammond resembles President Herbert Hoover more than a little bit.

President Hammond is a bachelor President with a cute little nephew and he soon orders his secretary Hartley “Beek” Beekman to make the beautiful Miss Pendola Molloy into Beekman's unofficial assistant after she shows up to the White House late at night. With an attractive bachelor President and an attractive and independent leading lady, it looks as if the film is going to veer into rom com territory like a proto version of The American President. However, the film soon performs a bait and switch and takes us into some very chilling and almost surreal territory.

During a meeting with the White House press corps, President Hammond shows himself to be a caricature of Herbert Hoover. Hammond tells the reporters that they may not quote him on the record and that questions must be submitted a day in advance. He also expresses his support for Prohibition, characterizes unemployment as a “local issue” and organized crime as a “local problem.” In short, Hammond is presented as a “do nothing” President. Hoover had similarly been popularly characterized as a “laissez faire do-nothing president” although this was largely untrue. President Hoover instituted a Keynesian "New Deal lite” during the latter stages of his presidency. FDR campaigned to the right of the progressive Hoover during the 1932 presidential election, promising things such as a balanced budget.

The strongest parallel with the Hoover administration is provided by liberal activist John Bronson's “Unemployed Army”—which closely resembles the “Bonus Army” that Hoover crushed through the use of military force. Bronson is planning a march on Washington with over a million unemployed men. When Bronson speaks on the radio, President Hammond is shown playing with his young nephew in the Oval Office and completely ignoring the speech.

President Hammond is presented as a bit of a reckless rascal in the first half hour of the film. He drives his own car—and drives it fast. In a key scene, Hammond is shown driving his car at over 100 MPH and leaving a car with reporters in the dust. Hammond loses control of the car, crashes, and winds up in a coma.

As Hammond lies unconscious at the White House, his doctors hold a vigil over him. He has a fractured skull and is not expected to live. While he is on the verge of death, a mysterious bell rings. Shortly thereafter, Hammond miraculously wakes up and recovers fully. This sets up the key ambiguity in the film and provides for an element of magical realism. The question is whether Hammond simply recovered naturally or whether there was divine inspiration involved. In essence, we are given the sort of ambiguity that would later be used in films such as K-PAX.

The notion of divine intervention saving the life of an American President provides an intriguing yet disturbing element of the Divine Right of Kings. It also reminds the modern viewer of George W. Bush—who clearly believed that God intended him to rule and intended him to invade Iraq. More broadly, this subtle theological element closely parallels the close ties that fascism had with organized religion in nations such as Germany, Italy, and Spain. Fascism—contrary to popular belief—is always closely tied to traditional religion.

After waking up from his coma, President Hammond sits alone thinking for several weeks. During this time, nobody is informed that he has recovered. It is revealed that Hammond has been transformed. It is as if he is now a different man. Is this the result of brain damage? Has he been possessed by some sort of angelic—or demonic—entity? Has he undergone a personality change as the result of a mystical experience? This question is never fully answered, but what is clear is that President Hammond is now very different. He loses interest in the beautiful Miss Molloy. He loses interest in his young nephew. He is focused and determined but also humorless and almost inhuman. He is a bit of a jerk, actually. In many ways, Huston plays Hammond like FDR for the remainder of the film.

While Hammond was incapacitated, the country has drifted to the verge of chaos. When he returns to duty, Hammond is informed that Bronson's Unemployed Army is headed toward D.C. His Secretary of War recommends that the demonstration be broken up through the use of military force—as Hoover had done to crush the Bonus Army. Hammond refuses and orders food and medical care to be provided to the Unemployed Army when they arrive, and he says that fighting starvation is the “moral equivalent” of war. This would become a central notion of progressive fascism in the United States and lead to things such as the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror. He expresses the idea that citizens should be guaranteed the “elemental necessities” and in so doing he anticipates FDR's “Second Bill of Rights” that would be presented in his 1944 inaugural speech a decade later. Hammond smiles confidently and tells his Secretary of War to read the Constitution because the President does have some power! Of course, the truth is that Article II of the Constitution grants POTUS few enumerated powers, but why let the Constitution get in the way of a good fascistic story? Hammond fires his Secretary of State to demonstrate his power.

The Unemployed Army marches from New York City toward Baltimore. It is presented as a peaceful and racially integrated group. Well, there is one token Black man shown at any rate. Hammond also has a token Black man working for him—his butler Sebastian who is a complete caricature. Progressives like Woodrow Wilson had been vehement racists, so it is no surprise that a progressive fascist film such as this would have racist undertones. On the way to Baltimore, a machine gunner in the back of a van disguised as an ambulance shoots and kills John Bronson. In an unintentionally funny scene, Bronson tells his followers to go on, and they do—walking right over his dead body as his daughter mourns!

President Hammond meets the Unemployed Army in Baltimore, and the group demands work. Hammond promises to establish an “Army of Construction”—which like future fascistic New Deal programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps would pay the unemployed to do public works. Of course, neither the Congress nor the President have the enumerated power to set up such an organization, but that hardly matters. Like any would be fascist dictator, Hammond has gained the loyalty of the unemployed masses just as Mussolini and Hitler had been doing in Europe.

Hammond's cabinet meets in secret to discuss their concerns about his unhinged tyrannical behavior, but Hammond learns of the meeting. He sends them each a note demanding their resignations for “reconstruction of the government.” While the President has the authority to seek the resignation of members of his cabinet, it is interesting to note that the 25^thAmendment—passed thirty years later—allows for the President to be declared disabled and removed from office by the Vice President and a majority of cabinet leaders. At this point it is clear that President Hammond is quite mentally ill.

Congress refuses to grant Hammond the money for his “Army of Reconstruction” and threatens to impeach him for his dictatorial unconstitutional overreach. Hammond gives an impassioned pro-Keynesian speech about economic proposals and action, and then asks Congress to a declare state of emergency, and adjourn until normal conditions are restored. Until “normal conditions” are restored, Hammond will wield dictatorial powers. When Congress rightly accuses the President of becoming a dictator, Hammond lectures them. He tells them that it is Congress who have given up democracy and become traitors. Hammond invokes the names of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. He goes so far as to claim that Jefferson was essentially a proto-Marxist utilitarian! Hammond then claims that the President has the power to declare martial law. Of course, even on the most fascistic reading of the Constitution and the law, the President may only declare martial law—according to the Insurrection Act of 1807—in the case of “insurrection” or “domestic violence” that so hinders the execution of government that citizens are deprived of their basic rights. However, progressives then like progressives now had fantasies about benevolent dictatorships that things like the niceties of law should never interfere with.

The Congress relents,and the next day the newspaper headline reads: “Congress Accedes to President's Request! Adjourns by Overwhelming Vote ... Hammond Dictator.” The dictator El Presidente Hammond prevents the foreclosure of mortgages, passes banking laws to protect money in banks, and provides direct aid to farmers. In essence, Hammond unilaterally enacts his own New Deal. It is interesting how much this resembles what FDR would do. FDR had a Congress dominated by members of his own party. If FDR had found himself in a situation where Congress was dominated by critics of the New Deal, would he have resorted to dictatorial actions like his fictional cinematic counterpart did? Given FDR's dictatorial use of executive orders—such as the one that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during the war—and his threat to “pack” the court, it is not that farfetched to claim that FDR may have become Hammond if Congress had been less friendly to his progressive brand of Depression-era fascism.

Dictatorship dominating democracy. Presented in a favorable light in an American film. Amazing! But the film only gets more chilling as it marches toward its conclusion. Hammond ends Prohibition. This is the first good idea that he has had in the entire film. However, instead of allowing a free market in alcohol to end gansterism, Hammond puts the alcohol industry under federal control. When wealthy New York bootlegger Nick Diamond—anti-semitism much?—begins to wage a terroristic campaign against federal alcohol stores, Hammond “fires” his secretary “Beek,” and names him the head of a new federal police unit to target racketeers. By this point “Beek” has fallen in love with Miss Molloy and proposed to her. Hammond seems to care little about having been made a cuckold by his own secretary. Perhaps this is some subtle reference to Hammond being “Christ-like” in being celibate, but it plays as a rom com gone very wrong.

“Beek” uses tanks to attack the headquarters of Diamond. With no Congress to interfere—and this is just what the film says—Hammond allows “Beek” to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Diamond and his lackies are not given due process. Instead of jury trials, they are tried before a military tribune which “Beek” presides over! All are declared guilty and sentenced to death. In a chilling scene, “Beek” orders a firing squad to “fire” as Diamond and his men stand against a wall bound and blindfolded. While I am a fan of horror films and no stranger to slasher films and “torture porn” horror flicks, this scene caused a wave of nausea to come over me. Is this what President Obama or some future POTUS may do with the broad anti-terror powers which Obama has claimed? Why fear drones when we have good old fashioned firing squads? Sickening!

The final scenes of the third act of the film present Hammond's foreign policy. President Hammond seeks to force European powers to pay their debts to the United States. While to the liberatrian-minded this may sound like a good idea—the government should not be intervening by giving foreign aid or loans at all—in the context of the times, it is problematic. If the European powers were all forced to pay money that they did not have during the Great Depression, Germany would not have been the only belligerent fascistic military power to arise on the Continent. World War II may have been even bigger and even more bloody had a plan like Hammond's been carried out.

Like FDR the candidate—and unlike FDR the President—Hammond preaches balanced budgets. Despite setting the stages for future war, he tells the foreign powers that if they stop spending money on unnecessary weapons and balance their budgets, they will become prosperous. At least it turns out that Hammond is not a complete Keynesian. One virtue at least! Hammond proposes the “Washington Covenant” by which if the rest of the world agrees to stop military build-ups, then the United States will do the same. Of course, it is likely that Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, or the Soviet Union would violate such a treaty and be enabled to militarily dominate the world, but progressives always had good intentions that led to disastrous consequences. Then and now.

Hammond does give a speech in which he predicts the awesome and terrible power of air forces and how they would lead to great destruction and suffering if there was another global conflict. He specifically mentions the danger of “death rays”—which remind the modern viewer a good deal of the radioactivity of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.

After signing the “Washington Covenant” with the quill that Lincoln used “to free the slaves,” Hammond collapses and dies in an apparent attempt for the filmmakers to make him into a martyr or further solidify Hammond's “Christ-like” nature.

While some may dismiss Gabriel Over the White House as an anachronistic precode relic of the Depression, in many ways it portrays the deepest desires of neo-progressives—as well as neoconservatives. To these individuals, the Constitution means nothing. Republican democracy means nothing. All that matters is carrying out the policies of one's favored political party—whether that is accomplished through democracy or dictatorship. The film's unapologetic presentation of its ideals is refreshing. If only neocons like Cheney or neo-progressives like Obama would have stated so nakedly their true desires.

The Zimmerman Case: Divide and Conquer

by Gerard Emershaw

The Zimmerman case has created a new racial divide among Americans. Actually, the government and media has used the case and its verdict to divide Americans among dubious racial lines in order to more easily “conquer” them.

For the most part, the verdict in the case is irrelevant. Zimmerman was tried and acquitted by a jury of his peers. End of story. The Zimmerman case was a local Florida criminal case and had absolutely no racial element. However, the corporatists in the dinosaur mainstream media and in the federal government did everything in their power to use the case as powerful propaganda to divide Americans among racial lines. Having White Americans and Black Americans at each other's throats is always good for the government and its corporate masters. As long as America is divided among racial, social, religious, and political lines, Americans will never unite against the crooked corporatists who pervert the Constitution and weaken the Republic. As long as Americans will allow this collectivists to collectivize them according to dubious racial categories, justice will never ultimately prevail.

The Zimmerman case never involved a racial issue. There is no evidence that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin for racial reasons. For one thing, George Zimmerman is Hispanic. Where the corporatist media came up with the dubious category of “White Hispanic” is anyone's guess. There is no evidence that George Zimmerman is or was a racist. In fact, there is a good deal of evidence to indicate that George Zimmerman has historically had harmonious relationships with Blacks.

But this is not about reality. This is about perception. The corporatist mainstream media was desperate to make the Zimmerman case into a racial case. Maybe this was just to sensationalize the story in order to increase readership/viewership and maximize profits. Or maybe there was a more sinister reason.

The New York Times has led the way in calling Zimmerman a “White Hispanic.” This is odd given that like Zimmerman, President Obama is of mixed race. Why doesn't that make Obama a “White Black?” On March 27, 2012, NBC News shamelessly edited a 911 call in order to make it appear that Zimmerman was a racial profiler. The actual call contained the following exchange between George Zimmerman and the dispatcher:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

The neo-progressive corporatist hacks at NBC News edited the tape in the following manner:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

President Obama decided to inject his opinion into the situation. A sitting president giving commentary on a local criminal case is as inappropriate today as it was when Nixon decided to express his opinion on the Manson case. President Obama said:

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that—that doesn't go away. There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they are shopping at a department store. And that includes me. There are very few African- American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.

President Obama has had the power to address problems in Black communities. He has had this power for over four years but has done nothing. Racism really does still exist in the United States. The War on Drugs is racist. The corporatist welfare state is racist. The Social Security System is racist. Unjustified racial profiling such as New York City's dubious and unconstitutional “stop and frisk” program is racist. What has the President done to address any of this? What has the President done to help the free market create jobs to help Black communities? Playing “the race card” where no racism is present only serves to divert attention away from actual racism.

If Eric Holder brings federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, it will be further proof that the corporatist neo-progressive Obama administration wants to exploit the tragedy for political reasons.

All Americans face a grave danger of being tyrannized by the corporatist collectivist state. The NSA will spy on Americans regardless of race. The government will deprive Americans of their natural constitutional rights regardless of race. Corporatist corporations will exploit Americans regardless of race. Allowing the media and the government to further Balkanize the United States and turn collectivist tribe against collectivist tribe will only quicken the American descent into total tyranny. Benjamin Franklin said: “We must, indeed, hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” If Franklin was alive today, he would certainly employ this quote to Americans of different ethnic backgrounds.

What Is a Journalist?

by Gerard Emershaw

In the wake of several scandals involving the Obama administration's attacks on the media, the Senate is attempting to develop a shield law that would protect journalists from having to comply with subpoenas or court orders requiring them to reveal sources or confidential information unless a judge determines there is reason to believe that a crime has occurred and the government has exhausted all other alternatives. Unlike most of what passes for legislation these days, this sounds promising. There is only one problem—lawmakers cannot agree on the definition of 'journalist.' 

Some Senators like California's Dianne Feinstein—wish to exclude organizations such as WikiLeaks from any protection. Others—like New York's Charles Schumer—wish to ensure that bloggers and other non-compensated news content providers of the internet age are protected by the legislation. 

So, what exactly is a journalist? 

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

Congress cannot abridge the freedom of the press. But what is "the press?"

Merriam-Webster defines 'press' as "news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters." It defines 'news' as "previously unknown information." It defines 'journalist' as "a person engaged in journalism; especially: a writer or editor for a news medium." It defines 'journalism' as "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media." It defines 'media' as "a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment." 

Nothing in the typical dictionary definitions associated with journalism and the press necessitates working for the mainstream corporate media or being compensated at all. If working for the mainstream corporate media was a necessary condition for being a journalist, then expressions such as "alternative media" and "independent journalist" would be meaningless. However, both expressions are completely meaningful. If being paid for one's work in the field of journalism was a necessary condition for being a journalist, then the expression "professional journalist" would be redundant. However, that expression can and does provide information. 

For better or worse, the paradigm of journalist is changing. Newspapers and magazines are disappearing. The network nightly newscasts have shrinking audiences. CNN and MSNBC are losing viewers, and even the dominant Fox News Channel is not significantly growing in viewership. The new journalistic paradigm is the social media—the blogosphere, Twitter, Facebook, etc. The internet allows the social media to report breaking news in real time—long before even television news channels can report. Obviously, any revolution like the internet news revolution will produce many dubious sources. However, there is nothing wrong with a free market in news. Sources that are found to be reputable will gain readers/viewers while those which are widely found to be dubious will eventually fade away. More speech is always better than less. 

Legislators who fear and loathe the people and the growing journalistic opportunities that the new social media gives them are advised to look to American history. Would those like Senator Feinstein wish to claim that the pamphleteers of the American Revolution such as John Dickinson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine were not journalists? Would they claim that the Founders did not wish to include individuals such as these under the rubric of "the press?" Would they claim that the Authors of the Constitution intended to provide no First Amendment protection for individuals like these? 

Lawyer John Dickinson published the pamphlet Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania which served to unite the Colonists against the taxation without representation created by the Townshend Acts. Samuel Adams published the pamphlet The Rights of the Colonists which helped to spread the idea of natural rights in the Colonies, setting the stage for the Declaration of Independence four years later. Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense sold more than 120,000 copies in three months and spread the ideas of the Revolution like wildfire. Without the contributions of these three Patriots, the Americans may not have won their freedom from the British Crown. 

Dickinson was a lawyer. Adams was a businessman and politician. Paine was a former British civil servant, school teacher, and failed businessman. None of these pamphleteers worked for any formal news service. Does that fact make them any less journalists? Does that fact make them and their writings any less worthy of protection under the First Amendment? If Congress opts to provide protections only to journalists who work for major media corporations at a time when a small number of large corporations control more and more of the media pie, then corporatism will have finally triumphed in the United States. If the pamphleteers of the Revolution were journalists, then so are the bloggers of today. If it was good for the pamphleteers to expose the tyranny of the British Crown, then it is also good for organizations like WikiLeaks to expose the tyranny of the American federal government and military.