Former CIA case officer, former member of National Security Council (NSC) and former CIA Angola Task Force Commander John R. "Bob" Stockwell provides an analysis of the Reagan Revolution. He discusses the fundamental restructuring of the economy and foreign policy, and how Reagan accomplished this. Stockwell scrutinizes Reaganomics and shows how it has weakened the U.S. economically while carrying out an enormous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich. He also criticizes the Reagan record on civil liberties and the interventionist foreign policy.
Recorded July, 1987
News: June 24, 1987; April 14, 1987
Liberty is defined as the freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. In other words, liberty does not imply the absence of rules and consequence of breaking those rules, only the absence of arbritrary and/or despotic rule. At the other end of the spectrum is social order, or the absence of anarchy, which one could say is of equal importance. The United States of America, it is said, is one of the first nations in history to create a form of government that, as much as possible, harmoniously balances liberty and social order.
As we emerge from the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rules preserving rights and liberties have increasingly been sacrificed in the name of "national security", primarily by lawmakers who have created an ambiguous, incoherent web of laws, leaving the average citizen in the dark.
Take the income tax, which can be traced back to 1862, when President Lincoln and Congress created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. It was passed as an emergency and temporary war-time tax, and in 1894, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitional. That is until the 16th amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). And in 1913 the very first IRS 1040 form was created, and since that point, the IRS code has morphed into an exceedingly convoluted, complex and oppressive creature.
One might ask, “Why can’t the tax laws be more simple?” Well, not only because of government’s insatiable desire for revenue, but also because Congress uses the tax laws for reasons other than that for which they were intended. The same is true for our legal system, in general. Our constitutional rights, if we really ever had them to begin with, have essentially been eviscerated by code. What can we do about it? On an individual basis, not much.
The real world determination of legal or "lawful" arguments lie with the immune judges, and prosecutors. Not only can they enforce the law, they can do so with impunity.
In 1976, the Supreme Court decided, in a case called Imbler v. Pachtman, that prosecutors have absolute immunity from civil rights lawsuits for their work in the courtroom. The court acknowledged that its ruling “does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty,” but said the alternative was worse: leaving prosecutors to fear a lawsuit, or even bankruptcy, every time they lose a trial..
Insofar as income tax, code section 6011 and code section 6012 require citizens to file. Constitutional? No, but go ahead and try to fight it.
The IRS can bring any action in the courts of the United States. There is an entire section of the Internal Revenue code that creates jurisdiction for the IRS to bring a lawsuit. For example, a section 7403 action, which allows the IRS to file a lawsuit against any delinquent taxpayer in a situation where the IRS wants to seize the property of that taxpayer. Although, the IRS is not allowed to seize the home of a taxpayer through the administrative process, the IRS can seek an order from a judge who allows the IRS to seize the property
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? -- James Madison
The IRS is an agency of the government of the United States; however, it has no respect for the constitution. The courts of the US have enforced the Internal Revenue code to the detriment of the constitution There is nothing morally or constitutionally correct about our current tax law. But, can they as a practical real life matter, enforce it? Yes, they can.
Zach Wahls, a son anyone would give their right arm, gives the best definition of family I've heard:
"...the sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other...to work through the hard times, so that we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That's what makes us a family." - Zach Wahls
Jesse Ventura on gay marriage: (interrupting Pat Buchannan, Thank God!) "You can't take a civil right's issue and put it up to a vote...if you did that, we might still have slavery if it was allowed to be voted on...You can't take civil rights and let people vote on it! [If you care what Pat had to say...listen for yourself..below] Well, not by the populace itself, Pat. You can't put a civil rights issue on a general ballot a state and let people vote on it because if you did that in the Southern states, you can bet they would've voted to continue slavery."
As Jesse said, the government has no right to legislate love, and in modern times, that's what marriage is based on: love between two consenting adults, pure and simple.
If the heterosexual marriage gestapo cares so much about the "institution" of marriage, let them start with their own marriages, and then heterosexual marriage in general. You know...take a look at the planks in their own eye. The problem is that there are so many, they're blinded.
Really? Even when, overwhelmingly, public opinion is pro-DADT repeal, but the Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, is urging caution and delay. He says that he is concerned about the potential impact of the repeal of the discriminatory policy that is DADT, because he's afraid the repeal will interfere with "military's readiness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention". Mullen is sorry that the vote went through before the Pentagon completed its policy review, the Pentagon's survey of troops and their families, which will supposedly demonstrate how to gradually pace the implementation of the repeal. What does that even mean?
“So since they know DADT is almost certainly on the way out, the real question for senior military leaders is to negotiate the best terms for its repeal. And what they want to protect more than anything else, as ADM Mullen’s comments indicate, is their ability to retain control over military personnel policies generally. If they fight a repeal that happens anyway, the loss of control would reverberate over the long term. But if they hold off implementing a repeal that is coming no matter what until they can say that they completed a study that endorses repeal, they can put themselves on the “winning” side. It’s a neat political sleight-of-hand that is a well-worn tool among Washington insiders — those who control policy implementation in a given area can position themselves to be the champions of a policy change that they know is coming rather than fighting it and being seen as defeated.”
“DADT will probably be repealed, but implementation will probably be delayed until the military makes a climactic endorsement of the policy change that’s coming anyway. The modern military is politically savvy enough to make itself the winner of the turf war in the process.” -- Jason Arvak
Why, all of a sudden, is there is an abundance of concern for the opinion and/or feelings of the military's rank and file? Were surveys completed on how the rank and file feel about compensation policy, consecutive tours of duty without any additional support, soldiers on food stamps, Blackwater, etc?
Anyway, the "don't ask don't tell" compromise seems to think that the military's rank and file are so fragile that the admission of the true sexuality of a colleague, who is equally willing to put his or her life on the line for this country, will send them spiraling over the edge. If that's true, how can they expect these"fragile" men and women to risk life and limb, as they endeavor to endure live combat? Nevertheless, the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff must certify that the repeal will not affect the military’s ability to fight.
The focus of this debate in the media has accentuated all the "negative" aspects or repealing DADT, when in fact, very few, if any negative aspects exist. Tune in and you will hear about the poor timing, "implementation problems" (gradual pace), and undermining "military cohesion" just to name a few. And even though the repeal is non-controversial at this point, with recent polls showing as much as75% of the public in favor, the corporate media has turned the repeal of DADT into a political football, making the repeal far from a done deal as "two hurdles remain before the demise of "don't ask, don't tell" can be assured". McCain being one, and
Since it became law in 1993 under Bill Clinton, DADT has forced lesbian, gay and bisexual service members to stay in the closet or face discharge. To date, 13,500 members of the armed forces were discharged under this law, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, SLDN, an advocacy organization, while tens of thousands of current service members are forced to hide in the closet.
At a time when the military and U.S. intelligence agencies did not have enough Arabic linguists - their skills indispensable - the military fired at least fifty-eight Arabic translators placing the anti-gay position over national security, exponentially adding to the hidden cost of this onerous law. How many terrorist messages went untranslated because an arabic or farsi or urdu translator was not OMG! heterosexual?
Recently, Dan Choi, the most visible gay spokesperson in favor of the repeal, and a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic with a degree in environmental engineering, and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.
Other nations that have lifted similar bans involving gays — including such close allies as Australia, Britain, Canada and Israel — report no harm to military effectiveness. As many as 66,000 gay men and women may be serving in the U.S. military, about 2.2 percent of all personnel, including 13,000 on active duty, according to a study by the Williams Institute of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.
But the homophobic GOP prepared to refuse an up or down vote in the Senate on a bill that funds the troops during two wars because Americans will eventually be able to serve in the Armed Forces, without hiding their sexual orientation. Unsurprisingly, in Fox’s nine segments that mentioned Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell following Obama’s announcement, not a single gay source was featured.
What kind of justice forces homosexuals, who serve our country, in the military, hide who they are, as they make the ultimate sacrifice?
"Except that it wasn't. At a ceremony to recognize our completion of basic training, the base commander gave a speech in which he said, "If you're homosexual, you have no business being here." As much as anything, it was the tone in which it was said, as if to say, "If you're hiding, we will find you."
I was shaken by the commander's statement. It was as if he had said it directly to me. Though I went on to complete my technical school training and was subsequently assigned to an Air Force base in West Texas, the damage had been done. I became overwhelmed by doubt and depression, fearing that if my secret were found out, only the worst of fates -- court-martial, for example -- awaited me.
My military service ended some three months later after I approached my supervisor about a discharge. I didn't tell him I was gay, just that I thought I was incompatible with military service. A compassionate man, he was sorry to me go, but worked with me to get me discharged. Less than eight months after I had enlisted, I was heading back to Denver as a civilian once more."
Palm Center - "Blueprints for sound public policy." The Palm Center is a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Since 1998, the Center has been a leader in commissioning and disseminating research in the areas of gender, sexuality, and the military. For more information visit
But Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, says this is a “false debate” taken up too readily by even mainstream journalists. “There is zero evidence that the transition will be difficult,” he said. “In fact, research across the board shows that implementation of openly gay service is a non-event and that the only thing that could make it bumpy is the suggestion by leaders that there’s cause for alarm.” Belkin pointed to research by the Government Accountability Office, the RAND Corporation, and the Palm Center showing that just two variables are relevant in ensuring a smooth transition: signals of confidence by leadership and a clear, single standard of behavior that applies to everyone. He also said that, unlike ending racial segregation, lifting "don't ask, don't tell" does not require massive change, such as the movement of personnel or newly integrating units, since gays are already integrated into units throughout the force, and polls show that many of them already serve openly.
That's right. The gay couple accused of kissing - formal charge trespassing - in a plaza on a Moromon Church's property is off the hook. As if it should've been an issue in the first place.
"Matt Aune and Derek Johns were arrested July 9. They said they were detained by security guards as they strolled across the plaza after they stopped for a kiss."
Jones and Aune said this week they are ready to move on and do not plan to file a lawsuit over the matter.
Read more...
"It started out with a kiss How did it end up like this It was only a kiss, it was only a kiss..." so Brandon Flowers, of the Killers, ever so convincingly, belts out in his song, "Mr. Brightside".
But apparently, to some, a kiss is reason enough to get the police involved and rough up the kissers, as this is exactly what happend on June 29 in El Paso, Texas. Five men were kicked out of the restaurant, Chico's after two of them kissed. A private security guard, after calling the men an anti-gay slur in Spanish, called the police, who then, cited a statute on homosexual conduct which was declared unconstitutional six years ago.
In other "kissing" news, a graduate of East Side High School is suing over the school blacking out a photo of him and his boyfriend kissing on his paid personal page in the school yearbook. The school did not black out photos of heterosexual students kissing.
NEWARK (CN) - A graduate of East Side High School demands punitive damages for "severe mental and emotional trauma" because on his paid personal page in the school yearbook, the school blacked out a photo of him kissing his homosexual partner, but it did not black out photos of heterosexual students kissing.
Andre Jackson demands punitive damages for discrimination, pain and suffering, civil rights violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hs is represented in Essex County Court by Anthony Mack
A lawsuit? Over a yearbook picture? Sounds like overkill, right?
Wrong. "Overkill" is the reason this student is suing. The school destroyed this student's picture in a zealous attempt to "spare" the heterosexual student body at the expense of the homosexual student body, reinforcing the deeply ingrained hostility many people in our society have against the GLBT population. This attitude is what prompts the violence we often see against something as innocent as two same-sex individuals, kissing or holding hands.
Recently, the FBI reported that anti-gay hate crimes have been on the rise since 2005. Last month, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reported that violent hate crimes against GLBT people increased 24% in 2007 and additional 2% in 2008.
This morning, at the LDS Temple in Salt Lake Utah, a kiss-in was staged to show support for" gay couple, Derek Jones, 25, and Matthew Aune, 28, who say they were detained by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints security guards after one man had kissed the other on the cheek Thursday. They had argued with the guards and were later cited for trespassing."
Is there any wonder why America is the most violent developed nation in the world?
"Do not doubt for a moment that, at some point, during the next few years, one or the other of those weapons [chemical, biological, or nuclear] will almost certainly be used in an act of terrorism against the United States . . . in the United States. Then the time for discussing our civil liberties will be over. More than likely, the use of a chemical or biological weapon in a terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland would lead to the imposition of martial law. For how long and under what circumstances it would be lifted again has, to the best of my knowledge, never even been publicly addressed. But understand that the most implacable enemy of our civil liberties is fear. What we will do after the next terrorist attack is not a conversation that should be deferred."
-- Ted Koppel at the University of California-Berkeley commencement
IT DOESN'T much matter whether President Bush was the one who phoned Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's hospital room before the Wednesday Night Ambush in 2004. It matters enormously, however, whether the president was willing to have his White House aides try to strong-arm the gravely ill attorney general into overruling the Justice Department's legal views. It matters enormously whether the president, once that mission failed, was willing nonetheless to proceed with a program whose legality had been called into question by the Justice Department. That is why Mr. Bush's response to questions about the program yesterday was so inadequate.
"I'm not going to talk about it," Mr. Bush told reporters at a news conference with departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "It's a very sensitive program. I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it's still necessary because there's still an enemy that wants to do us harm."
No one is asking Mr. Bush to talk about classified information, and no one is discounting the terrorist threat. But there is a serious question here about how far Mr. Bush went to pressure his lawyers to implement his view of the law. There is an even more serious question about the president's willingness, that effort having failed, to go beyond the bounds of what his own Justice Department found permissible.
Yes, Mr. Bush backed down in the face of the threat of mass resignations, Mr. Ashcroft's included, and he apparently agreed to whatever more limited program the department was willing to approve. In the interim, however, the president authorized the program the Justice lawyers had refused to certify as legally permissible, and it continued for a few weeks more, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey's careful testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under the Constitution, the president has the final authority in the executive branch to say what the law is. But as a matter of presidential practice, this is breathtaking.
These are important topics for public discussion, and if anyone doubts that they can safely be discussed in public, they need look no further than Mr. Comey's testimony. Instead of doing so, Mr. Bush wants to short-circuit that discussion by invoking the continuing danger of al-Qaeda.
"And so we will put in place programs to protect the American people that honor the civil liberties of our people, and programs that we constantly brief to Congress," Mr. Bush assured the country yesterday, as he brushed off requests for a more detailed account. But this is exactly the point of contention. The administration, it appears from Mr. Comey's testimony, was willing to go forward, against legal advice, with a program that the Justice Department had concluded did not "honor the civil liberties of our people." Nor is it clear that Congress was adequately informed. The president would like to make this unpleasant controversy disappear behind the national security curtain. That cannot be allowed to happen.
Are terrorists more dangerous checking out a library book or buying military style weapons in the United States?
Following 9/11, the FBI, under pressure from the Bush administration, allocated most of its resources toward counterterrorism cutting civil rights enforcement drastically, slashing the number of criminal investigations conducted nationwide.
Meanwhile The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms that they are now allowed to buy. The NRA says banning gun sales to terror suspects infringes on civil liberties, but banning book sales to "innocent" Americans is not?
And finally, ew rule: liberals must stop saying President Bush hasn't asked Americans to sacrifice for the War on Terror. On the contrary, he's asked us to sacrifice something enormous: our civil rights.
Now, when I heard George Bush was reading my e-mails, I probably had the same reaction you did--George Bush can read?! (Laughter.) Yes he can, and this administration has read your phone records, credit card statements, mail, internet logs... I can't tell if their fighting the War on Terror or producing the next season of Cheater. (Laughter.) I mail myself a copy of the Consitution every morning, just on the hope they'll open it and see what it says! (Laughter and applause).
So when it comes to sacrifice, don't kid yourself--you *have* given up a lot! You've given up faith in your government's honesty, the good will of people overseas, and 6/10 of the Bill of Rights. Here's what you've sacrificed: search and seizure, warrents, self incrimination, trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment. Here's what you have left: handguns, religion, and they can't make you quarter a British soldier. If Prince Harry invades the inland empire, he has to bring a tent. (Laughter).
You know, in previous wars, Americans on the homefront made a very different kind of sacrifice. During World War II, we endured rationing, payed higher taxes, bought war bonds, and in the interest of national unity, people even pretended Bob Hope was funny. (Laughter.) Right--like you laughed at him!
Women donated their silk undergarments so they could be sewn into parachutes. Can you imagine nowadays a Britney Spears or a Lindsay Lohan going without underwear? (Laughter.) Bad example, but look, George Bush has never been too bright about understanding "furriners", but he does know Americans. He asked *this* generation to sacrifice the things he knew we would not miss--our privacy and our morality. He let us keep the money. But he made a cynical bet, that we wouldn't much care if we became a Big Brother country that has now tortured a lot of random people.
And yet no one asks the tough questions, like "Is torture necessary?", "Who will watch the watchers?" and "When does Jack Bauer go to the bathroom?" (Laughter.) I mean, it's been five years--is he wearing one of those astronaut diapers?
In conclusion, after September 11, President Bush told us Osama bin Laden "could run but he can't hide". But he ran and hid. (Laughter.) So Bush went to Plan B: pissing on the Constitution and torturing random people. Conservatives always say the great thing Reagan did was make us feel good about America again. Well, do you feel good about America now?
I'll give you my answer. And to get it out of me, you don't even need to hold my head under water and have a snarling guard dog rip my nuts off. (Laughter). No, I don't feel very good about that. They say evil happens when good men do nothing. Well, the Democrats proved it also happens when mediocre people do nothing.
