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.

Cruel and Unusual: The Torture of Bradley Manning

by Gerard Emershaw

Private First Class Bradley Manning was found guilty of 19 of 21 charges at his court martial. While he was acquitted of aiding the enemy by knowingly giving out intelligence through indirect means, he was convicted of many serious charges including six counts of espionage. The sentencing phase of Manning's court martial began on July 31, and his punishment will be known very soon. While it is obvious that Manning is a hero and not a traitor, this is not about that issue. What is even more obvious is that Bradley Manning was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment while he was detained at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. 

In late January of 2011, Manning was placed on suicide watch. This decision was punitive rather than therapeutic. Manning had protested against being issued conflicting commands by guards and being castigated for responding to commands with "yes" instead of "aye," and the guards decided to arbitrarily strike back. The guards removed Manning's clothing and eyeglasses and forced him to remain in his 6 x 12 foot windowless solitary confinement cell for 24 hours a day. Later, in March of 2011, after being removed from suicide watch, Manning was again arbitrarily punished in the name of psychiatric welfare after he made a sarcastic comment. Manning had been under the Prevention of Injury (POI) status during his time in the brig at Quantico. POI status entails being forced to sleep wearing only boxer shorts. After Manning dared to exercise freedom of speech and make a sarcastic quip about suicide, he was punished by again having his boxer shorts removed and forced to sleep naked and present himself naked for inspection in the morning by his guards. 

The Eighth Amendment states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

What exactly constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment?" Much of the debate concerning the Eighth Amendment has centered around capital punishment, but the issue here is whether Manning's treatment while in pre-trial detention at Quantico constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." 

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), a case concerning the constitutionality of the death penalty, JusticeBrennan wrote a concurring opinion—there were five concurring opinions in the case but no controlling majority opinion—providing providing plausible criteria for determining whether a punishment is "cruel and unusual": 

There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is "cruel and unusual." The primary principle, which I believe supplies the essential predicate for the application of the others, is that a punishment must not, by its severity, be degrading to human dignity. The paradigm violation of this principle would be the infliction of a torturous punishment of the type that the Clause has always prohibited. Yet "[i]t is unlikely that any State at this moment in history," Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. at 666, would pass a law providing for the infliction of such a punishment. Indeed, no such punishment has ever been before this Court. The same may be said of the other principles. It is unlikely that this Court will confront a severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion; no State would engage in a reign of blind terror. Nor is it likely that this Court will be called upon to review a severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society; no legislature would be able even to authorize the infliction of such a punishment. Nor, finally, is it likely that this Court will have to consider a severe punishment that is patently unnecessary; no State today would inflict a severe punishment knowing that there was no reason whatever for doing so. In short, we are unlikely to have occasion to determine that a punishment is fatally offensive under any one principle. 

After listing the few cases where the Supreme Court held a punishment to be unconstitutional as "cruel and unusual" under the Eighth Amendment, Brennan continues: 

The function of these principles, after all, is simply to provide means by which a court can determine whether a challenged punishment comports with human dignity. They are, therefore, interrelated, and, in most cases, it will be their convergence that will justify the conclusion that a punishment is "cruel and unusual." The test, then, will ordinarily be a cumulative one: if a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily, if it is substantially rejected by contemporary society, and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment, then the continued infliction of that punishment violates the command of the Clause that the State may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes. 

One may object that Manning's treatment at Quantico was not technically a punishment because he had yet to be convicted of any crime and because his ill treatment was carried out by guards on the order of a superior officer rather on the order of a legally sanctioned sentencing judge. However, why must a punishment be an official, legally sanctioned punishment in order to be a punishment? To exempt prison guards or the like from the Eighth Amendment is to invite the most barbarous of torture. The cornerstone of the American criminal justice system is that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The ill treatment of detainees who have yet to be convicted of any crime is, in many important ways, even more problematic than the ill treatment of convicted criminals. Therefore, the Eighth Amendment must protect both the presumed innocent and the guilty from cruel and unusual punishment. 

Was Manning's punishment unusually severe? What was his "offense?" He made a sarcastic comment regarding suicide to his jailers. When did gallows humor become a crime rather than an exercise of the natural right to free speech? Free speech should not be punished at all, and it should especially not be punished in the cynical guise of psychiatric care. 

Was Manning's punishment arbitrary? It certainly seemed to be based upon nothing other than the whim of Quantico brig commander Chief Warrant Officer 2 Denise Barnes. There was no due process of any kind. Furthermore, there is no indication that Barnes is a physician or has any medical training at all. What gives her the credentials to decide that Manning was a suicide risk? 

Is Manning's punishment substantially rejected by contemporary society? Despite having more relaxed mores concerning nudity, contemporary American society regards forced nudity as an unacceptable form of punishment. If a parent were to punish his or her child by such means, we would likely call it abuse. If a school were to punish a student with forced nudity, his or her parents would rightfully seek to sue the school and press criminal charges against the school officials responsible. The Nazis employed forced nudity in concentration camps and the Soviets did the same in the Gulags, and this is not lost on Americans today. Humiliation in the form of forced nudity is not issued as a punishment by any American court of law. This is no coincidence. 

If—for the sake of argument—Manning did deserve punishment for his sarcastic quip, is there any reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment? If Manning deserved punishment, it is obvious that something like a stern verbal chastisement or a loss of some privilege would have been just as effective in curbing his sarcasm as the depraved psycho-sexual torture that his jailers employed. Therefore, it is obvious that according to Justice Brennan's criteria, Manning was in fact subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore, his natural rights under the Eighth Amendment were violated. 

Manning is not alone in such treatment. Many prisoners—who have yet to be convicted of any crime—held in American jails are subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. For example, notorious Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio proudly punishes his prisoners—many of whom have yet to have their day in court—by humiliating them with striped jail uniforms and pink underwear and treating them worse than the county's police dogs by feeding them dubious bologna sandwiches and forcing them to endure stiflingly hot temperatures in the "tent city" jail in Phoenix. In such cases, the cruel and unusual pre-trial punishments arbitrarily imposed by jailers can be viewed as akin to torture during the Inquisition. Such torture makes it far more likely that even an innocent defendant will accept a plea bargain in order to put an end to the cruel treatment. Therefore, such ill treatment of prisoners in jails -- whether military or civilian -- cannot be accepted by a civilized society.

The Disconcerting Disconnect: 63% of Americans Believe that NSA is Lying About Data Collection Yet 50% Still Approve of the Program

by Gerard Emershaw  

  
According to a Pew Research Center poll released on July 26, 2013, 56% of Americans believe that the courts have not provided adequate limits on what is collected by the NSA. In addition, 70% of those surveyed believe that the government is using the data collected by the NSA for purposes other than anti-terror. Even more interesting is that 63% of those surveyed believe that the government has been lying about the NSA collecting only metadata and believe that the NSA is in fact collecting what is being said in phone calls and e-mails. However, the most interesting result from the Pew poll on the NSA is that 27% of those surveyed believe that the government has specifically listened to their phone calls or read their e-mails.

Overall, 47% of Americans believe that government anti-terror policies have gone too far in restricting civil liberties while 35% believe that government anti-terror policies have not gone far enough to protect the country. This marks a major change from recent American attitudes on this issue. In 2010, 58% of Americans surveyed in a similar Pew Research poll said that government anti-terror policies had not gone far enough to protect the country while only 27% said that these policies went too far in restricting civil liberties. 

Statists and die hard Obama apologists are likely to say that all this simply means that Tea Party blowhards and tin foil hat wearing paranoids are scaring many Americans with disinformation. Civil libertarians are likely to say that this poll data indicates that many Americans are waking up and realizing the prescience of Senator Frank Church's 1975 warning about the NSA:

"Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."

Despite all this, half of those surveyed still voiced support for the NSA surveillance program while only 44% indicated disapproval. Why the disconnect? If so many believe that the NSA is lying and so many believe that the courts are not doing enough to protect Americans from the NSA, then how can half support the NSA data collection program?

This apparent disconnect begins to make more sense when we examine approval/disapproval of the NSA data collection program among members of the two political parties. Among Republicans, 44% approve and 50% disapprove. Among Independents, 47% approve and 48% disapprove. Among Democrats, 57% approve and 36% disapprove.

Do you see what is going on here? If you are a staunch supporter of the GOP, don't bash Democrats just yet. In a 2006 Pew Research Poll conducted on American attitudes toward the Bush warrantless wiretap program, 75% of Republicans approved while only 37% of Democrats approved.

Now it all begins to make sense. It also all begins to be even more sickening. What Democrats and Republicans both seem to agree on concerning unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment by the NSA is that such dastardly actions are perfectly fine as long as their party's candidate is sitting in the Oval Office. In essence, for far too many Americans, fidelity to the Constitution does not matter as much as whether the commander-in-chief is a donkey or an elephant. For these citizens, politics is akin to sports. For the Yankees fan, when a Red Sox player steals signs from the Yankees catcher, he is a dirty cheater. However, for that same fan, when a Yankees player steals signs from the Red Sox catcher, he is playing heads up baseball. But the machinations of politicians and security agencies are not the same as the antics of professional athletes. Far more is at stake. For most of us, the outcome of a sporting event has little effect on our lives. We cheer or groan when the game is over and then move on. However, the malfeasance of security agencies like the NSA has profound effects on our privacy, our rights, and our freedom. 

When rabid partisanship becomes more important than Constitutional principles and natural rights, then the nation has devolved into a system of tyranny of the majority. When this happens, the nation has transformed into a democratic banana republic. When a party is in power, it can oppress its opponents to its heart's content. While members of the minority party may not like this, they just have to grin and bear it until the next election. When their party regains control of the White House, then it's pay back time!

But is this the kind of country we want? Is this variety of political moral relativism a good thing? Isn't the moral rightness or wrongness of an action independent of whether the actor is a donkey or an elephant? Isn't the Constitution and the natural rights that it upholds more important than which party's candidate is living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? The danger created by the widespread worship of political parties is one which threatens every American.

The Face of Moderate GOP Fascism

by Gerard Emershaw

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Barry Goldwater

The House of Representatives very nearly won a battle in the war to preserve the Fourth Amendment, and Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is furious about it. Last week the House voted 217 to 205 against a bipartisan bill sponsored by Republican Justin Amash and Democrat John Conyers which would have defunded the fascistic and out of control NSA, preventing it from further destroying what is left of Fourth Amendment protections. Celebrity RINO Chris Christie wasted no time in denigrating freedom when contemplating this close call:

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought.”

The fact that Governor Christie was appointed as a federal prosecutor by the incompetent President George W. Bush whose administration was infested with radical Trotskyite war criminals indicated that Christie was likely not a champion of civil liberties. This anti-liberty hissy fit verified it. The idea of liberty is always dangerous to tyrants. It was dangerous to King George in the 1770s and it is equally dangerous to President Obama now.

Christie has dismissed the current privacy/national security debate as "esoteric." What precisely is it about the issue that makes it only understandable by a small circle of elites? The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is anything but esoteric. Its language is so straightforward that anyone can understand it.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In order to violate the privacy of a person by conducting a search, the government must get a warrant. Why is that esoteric? What is it that Governor Christie finds so difficult about the concept?

Governor Christie (like his fellow RINO Rudy Giuliani) also fetishizes 9/11 and uses the emotionality that the tragic terrorist event produces as a sledgehammer to smash dissent. "I think what we as a country have to decide is: Do we have amnesia? Because I don’t,” Christie said. “And I remember what we felt like on Sept. 12, 2001."

How did we feel on September 12, 2001? Shocked, frightened, and angry. But we still had our natural right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. Why does Governor Christie believe that the American people should lose their right to privacy because terrorists attacked the United States and incompetent politicians and federal agents failed to stop it? Why should innocent Americans be punished for the crimes of others? A Stasi police state was not necessary to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Due diligence on the part of the Bush administration and the FBI would have nipped the hijacking plot in the bud. So why is a police state necessary now?

Like most RINOs, Governor Christie personifies an unhealthy kind of bipartisanship. For example, Christie publicly admires the fascistic policies that both President Bush and President Obama have employed in waging their bogus War on Terror.

“I want to say that I think both the way President Bush conducted himself and the way President Obama has conducted himself in the main on those types of decisions hasn’t been different because they were right and because we haven’t had another one of those attacks that cost thousands and thousands of lives."

Governor Christie believes that another attack like those on 9/11 has not occurred because of the fascistic police state that has developed as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act and related legislation. A much simpler and better explanation is that there are simply not that many terrorists in the United States and that a deadly large scale terrorist attack is very difficult to carry out.

The mainstream media has demonized the Tea Party and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party in recent years for dissenting against the economic and national security tyranny of the Obama administration. Obstructionism is condemned even when it is the result of standing up for liberty. Bipartisanship is praised even when it involves a cooperative effort to shred the Constitution.

If Governor Christie is the future of the GOP, then the era of the blue/red divide in American politics may come to an end. The "do nothing" Congress will become energized and accomplish great feats of bipartisanship. However, this bipartisan cooperation will lead to an even more oppressive police state where the NSA, FBI, and CIA violate the privacy of Americans in ways that the East German Stasi could not even have imagined.

Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton and two sides of the same oppressive collectivist coin. If Governor Christie becomes the GOP standard bearer in 2016, then there is very little point in even holding a presidential election.

The Mail Monopoly

by Gerard Emershaw

“Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.”

Herodotus describing the Persian system of mounted mail carriers circa 500 B.C.E. 

The United States Congress is notorious for exercising powers not granted to it in the Constitution. However, among the enumerated powers actually granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is the power “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” The first official Postmaster General of the United States was Benjamin Franklin who was appointed to the office in 1775 and was serving when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Two Postmasters – Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman – later became presidents.

The United States Postal Service (USPS) enjoys a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail and on access to mail boxes. This monopoly on first class mail was once so profitable that it allowed the USPS to subsidize the rest of its services in order to make them less expensive for customers. The advent of e-mail has gradually turned the cash cow of first class mail into a burden for the USPS. It is estimated that the true cost of delivering a piece of first class mail is actually twice as expensive as the amount that USPS charges for the service.

The USPS lost an estimated $16 billion in 2012. The USPS is an independent federal government agency which gets no funding from tax dollars. The USPS has attempted to streamline and cut costs in recent years. Since 2006, it has reduced its annual costs by $15 billion, consolidated over 200 mail-processing centers, and cut nearly 200,000 jobs—28% of its workforce.

Despite not being funded by Congress, the USPS is subject to stringent federal regulation. The USPS must petition the Postal Regulatory Commission and sometimes Congress when it seeks to make any change to its business model – e.g. closing remote post offices. While a drop in volume of “snail mail” due to internet technology has adversely affected the USPS, Congress has been even more detrimental to its bottom line. Congress has mandated that the USPS must make advance payments to pay for the health benefits of future retirees. This requirement was responsible for $11.1 billion of the losses of the USPS in 2012.

Another problem that the USPS faces is a unionized workforce represented by the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. The USPS has over 600,000 workers – second to only Walmart among American employers, and over 85% of these workers are represented by the NALC. As a result of unionization, average competition for USPS employees is over $80,000 per year. Who knew that Cliff Clavin was doing so well? And why didn't he pay Norm's tab if he was doing so well financially?

In February, the USPS announced that it would be ending Saturday mail delivery in August. Congress is now considering ending all home delivery of mail in favor of curbside and cluster box delivery—which is already the norm for new housing developments. Many Americans who enjoy home delivery of their mail will not be happy if it is eventually eliminated. Senior citizens are likely to be most affected. Unfortunately, because of the monopoly that the USPS enjoys on first class mail, there is nothing that customers can do even if they would be willing to pay a premium for continued home delivery of their mail.

The answer, of course, is for mail delivery to be deregulated and privatized. While the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a Post Office, this does not mean that it must do so. It also does not mean that the USPS must have a monopoly on first class mail. Private entities like Fed Ex and UPS already compete with the USPS in categories of package and letter delivery other than first class mail.

While privatization and deregulation of first class mail would initially make the service more expensive than it is now, it is not difficult to imagine competition eventually leading to innovations which will lower the price. Consider how relatively inexpensive long distance phone service has become since the Ma Bell monopoly was broken up and the resulting deregulation led to massive competition among providers. Private business entities always have a greater incentive to lower customer costs and to provide better service. This is simply the natural result that competition in a free market always produces.

Surprisingly, Western European nations are already far ahead of the United States when it comes to the privatization of mail service. All 27 member nations ofthe European Union have already privatized their mail service or will end government mail monopolies in the near future.

There will be many who will fight such privatization tooth and nail. The NALC for one. Unions never give up without a fight—at least until they drive an American industry out of business. There will also be resistance from mail customers in rural areas. The USPS at present must guarantee mail delivery for customers who live in remote areas. The rate for a first class letter is the same for the rural customer as it is for the customer living on Main Street in a densely populated city or suburb. However, reasonably priced first class mail service is not a right, and there is no reason why customers living in cities or suburbs must subsidize the first class mail service of those who wish to live in the middle of nowhere. 

While the USPS does not receive taxpayer funding, its massive yearly losses will ultimately affect taxpayers. According to the USPS itself, both UPS and Fed Ex have comparable rankings to the USPS when it comes to customer satisfaction with express and priority mail service. There is no reason to believe that UPS and Fed Ex would not also be able to deliver first class mail just as well if given the chance. These private entities would also be able to do this while earning a profit. Fed Ex made nearly $1.5 billion in profits in 2011. UPS projects that it will earn $4.5 billion in profits in 2013. There is simply no reason not to end the USPS monopoly on first class mail.