This Is What Tyranny Looks Like and it Won't Get Better Under Romney

Published on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 by Common Dreams

This Is What Tyranny Looks Like

by Carl Gibson

 

 

Protesters clashed with police at the NATO summit meeting in Chicago on Sunday. (Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times)Remember when police beat Tea Party activists with batons, raided homes without warrants, unjustly arrested and strip-searched Tea Party protesters, or attacked and intimidated journalists covering Tea Party rallies?

Me neither. But then again, the Tea Party took to the streets in favor of higher profits and less regulations for the richest 1 percent, whose ranks they hope to but will never join. The media is more than happy to inflate their crowd estimates, and police are more than happy to let pro-status quo protests take to the streets undisturbed. The Tea Party has since phased out street protests to take over a major political party and make it bend to their every radical whim.
While it hasn't yet taken over a major party, the Occupy movement has successfully exposed the oppressive fascist police state that has reared its ugly head in the past year. If you want to see what tyranny looks like, consider what happened to the estimated 75,000 protesters who took on the military-industrial complex at last weekend’s NATO summit in Chicago, after the mayor revoked protesters' attempts to lawfully assemble.

-A night before protests even begun, the Chicago Police Department raided an activist’s home and arrested several on unproven allegations of terrorist activity, all without a valid warrant.

-At the front of a police line surrounding a NATO gathering, police suddenly start beating unarmed protesters with batons in an eerie video resembling police at Egypt’s Tahrir Square.

-While covering the protests, credentialed journalists are attacked by police who use bicycles as weapons.

-After a day of covering the protests, three livestreamers are surrounded by Chicago police at gunpoint and have their car and property impounded without cause.

But the oppression isn’t coming from just the police. The federal government is now openly embracing totalitarian tactics in suppressing political dissent, including unwarranted surveillance, denial of due process rights, and even psychological warfare:

-FBI agents pressured a group of anarchists in Ohio to blow up a bridge on May Day, going so far as to pick out a target and provide the explosives. They were held without bond after their arrest. White supremacists in Florida planning an actual terrorist attack at a May Day protest were outed by state police, and ignored by federal law enforcement. Their bond was set at $500.
-The Department of Homeland Security assembled almost 800 pages of documents detailing possibly unconstitutional monitoring of the Occupy movement, and collaboration with city governments.

-Congress voted down an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited the federal government from detaining American citizens indefinitely, without trial, based on pure suspicion. They did so exactly one day after US District Judge Katherine Forrest struck down NDAA detention provisions as unconstitutional. Congress also passed a law allowing protesters to be arrested on felony charges anywhere where there is secret service protection, and is actively seeking to lift a ban on the use of propaganda on American citizens.

-The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to allow invasive and humiliating strip searches for any arrest, no matter the charge (like protesting).

So why the violent police oppression and government suppression of rights? As Dan Rather said on Bill Maher’s program, “Big business is in bed with big government.” A great portion of the federal government is sponsored by big corporations, so naturally, nearly every act of Congress and the Supreme Court is done so with the ultimate goal of deregulating industry and maximizing corporate profits at the expense of citizen and consumer rights. These puppets of industry occupying our government will discredit and crack down on anyone trying to stop, delay or reverse the process by any means necessary.

In 1963, JFK famously said our nation was “founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” The historic street demonstrations of 2012 will be meaningless unless citizens use the power of the vote this year to remove the worst offenders from office. They can start with the Representatives and Senators who voted NO to due process rights.

Carl Gibson, 25, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Old Lyme, Connecticut. You can contact Carl at usuncut@gmail.com, and listen to his online radio talk show, Swag The Dog, at blogtalkradio.com/swag-the-dog.

Meet the Manufactured Anti-Christ?

Meet the Manufactured Anti-Christ?

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012. Filed under: Alternative Knowledge Big Brother Esoterica media and politics National Emergency Spirituality surveillance society The Awakening

by Zen Gardner

Wanna piss a planet off? Take all of your carefully religiously programmed humanoid peons and flaunt their anti-god in front of their faces. Wave it like a red flag in front of a bull.

That’ll work.

This staged bullshit is so indicative of the One World Order clandestine controllers it’s beyond description. These bastards are not only triggering every pre-programmed hot button they can find, but the confusion factor is beyond description.

It shows they’ll not only go to any length to pull off their shenanigans, but that the time is ripe in their minds to do so.

Damn these bastards.

It’s All “Prophesied”

So, let’s cut to the quick. For any informed researcher, this is as plain as a gay day:

According to the Bible:

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
Daniel 11:35

This is a mainstay of Christian prophecy. The antichrist will be gay. Odd the Jews don’t claim it, but they’re on a different channel altogether. Big subject, but same deception.

But our Unisex antichrist has been awaited for some time. Is this a deliberate reference to this programming? And are they staging this jerk?

Wouldn’t Be Surprised

What’s amazing is seeing how manipulated this entire scenario is. The Obama phenomenon has been clearly orchestrated from day one, but how far they’re taking it so fast is another aspect. It’s getting crazy fast, like they’re preparing in a hurry for some future event they know is coming.

And it is. We know it is. All of us

We’ll see what transforms as the lower powers push the upper. We’re watching a drama unfold that will undoubtedly tick off hoards of people that they know will only spur on the change they want to see. And it has everything to do with there NOT being another election.

It’s evil manipulation to the core.

But we’re still in charge. Big time. Don’t ever fall for their leads, they’re born into deception and have no qualms about deceiving others, while they live in the lap of a temporary luxury.

We’re well off without any of that.

Nature is our playing field. That’s why they’re trying to kill her. As well as most of us.

But as sure as the vastness of the Universe, there’s no way they’ll succeed.
Be aware…be very aware….

Zen

Zengardner.com

A Gallery of Smirking NeoCons and NeoLibs

by Zen Gardner

Ever notice the smug, smirky look of the Neocons, as well as the leading Neolibs? Cocky bunch.

When I saw Bill Kristol on Fox calling for a troop invasion of Libya and spewing the same old Neocon Zionist propaganda, it just all came together. And don’t forget, they’re all on the same team, right, left or center. I’ve included a gallery of “Neolibs” after the Neocons–you’ll see the same disgusting looks of smug arrogance and disdain.

Check back for updates, this list is bound to grow…enjoy.

Meet the Smirks

A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words

Nice mug, CFR Bill. Feeling a little overconfident will all your “inside info”?

Bill’s boss at Fox, Rupert Murdock, king of smirk, looking a lot like Big Brother…in partnership with Jobs on project..

Seriously deformed…

Joe ‘permasmirk’ Lie-berman…

Smug just oozes when you work directly for the Rothschilds….

Nasty people…


Reagan was loaded with Illuminati credentials and sported a constant smugness…

Billionaire Zionist puppet Bloomberg smacks one on…

It just comes naturally to these guys…

Money, power and selling out apparently is something to be proud about…ask Aahhhhnold.
He grew up admiring Hitler and wanting to be a dictator. Nice. ‘Velcome to Ahmedika’

This guy reeks of evil…..Lewis Libby…subhuman Neocon Zionist go-fer..

Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz–bad to the bone war profiteering Neocon Zionists

Smug John Bolton–always screaming for attack on Iran..everyone plays their part..

Netanyahu clearly knows he owns Obama….

“Down Pat” Robertson has God on his side…what more do you need?

Puppet politician John Boehner….classic, and freakish

Couldn’t help it…now look again at Boener..see what I mean?

Neocon architect William F. Buckley Jr., Knight of Malta, CFR and Bilderberg Group Member
…the captain of arrogant smirk..

Making smug a way of life…

Yes, they’re laughing at us, the ignorant masses they find so easy to deceive and be led by the nose….time’s almost up, boys.

Scary smirk Chertoff. Dang he’s creepy…
making millions on backscatter machines while irradiating the world

Here’s a two-fer…Rumsfeld and Limbaugh. I guess some people just know better than the rest of us….

Let’s not forget the Neolibs…the other side of the same coin

“Told ya I’d get my way in Chicago…”…like many here, sports dual Israeli/US nationality
Guess where the first loyalty lies, besides themselves?

Bozo even smirks with nothing upstairs…

Hillary just revels in power

I guess smirking is a gift that comes with being better than everyone…

Where smug and smirky meet slime…Illuminti sell out Bubba Clinton

And how’s the “carbon credit” business working out for ya, Al?
Fat ‘n happy and on board with the globalist agenda…

Pelosi “meaner than a snake” according to fellow politician…

Smug smirks take on new dimensions with this cardboard puppet….

He’s just SO GOOD at it, deserved an encore…

Seems to run in the “first family”….not a first in my book, however….

“Thank you, O Lucifer, Bringer of the New Dawn, that I am nothing like the others I’m working to exterminate…”

Berlusconi of Italy—just to let you know smirking is a global problem….
Speaking of which, France has the disease too, in a big way…

A good, quality Rothschild smirk! Etienne Alphonse de Rothschild….my, he’s a cocky bastard…

They’re everywhere! Rachel Maddow – Life is good when you’re always right…

But who can “Trump” a petrified smirk?

There are many more…

Remember, these people will stop at nothing to get their way, and in no way are representing anyone but the Elite overlords.
It is staggering to see them so obvious in their arrogance.
Fear not, their time is “but for a moment”.

For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. (Ps.37)

Love, Zen
www.zengardner.com

 

America cursed by its thieving neocon-neolib leadership

Libertarian Today

FOR LIBERTARIAN NATIONALISM: ANTI-CORPORATIST, ANTI-COMMUNIST, ANTI-GLOBALIST...PRO-SOVEREIGNTY, PRO-POPULIST, PRO-FREE ENTERPRISE

Thursday, July 07, 2011

America cursed by its thieving neocon-neolib leadership? Forecasters keep moving up date China will overtake U.S. as most powerful, prosperous

From:
China to Trounce U.S. in Next Decade
(National Interest) -- by Martin Jacques --

THE

NATIONAL

INTEREST

China to Trounce U.S. in Next Decade

Martin Jacques

|

July 7, 2011

 

The Western financial crisis heralded a significant shift in the balance of power between the United States and China. Most starkly, it brought forward the date when the Chinese economy will overtake the US economy in size from 2027 (the Goldman Sachs projection in 2005) to 2020. The reason is simple: while the US economy is around the same size as it was in 2008, with the prospect of perhaps a decade of very weak growth ahead, the Chinese economy has continued to grow at around 9 percent and future economic growth is likely to be in the region of 8 percent. While 2027 sounded sufficiently far in the future to sound speculative, 2020, in contrast, is less than a decade away and feels much more like an extension of the present. The rise of China and the decline of the United States is becoming more tangible by the year.

Significant landmarks are happening thick and fast: in 2010, China overtook Germany to become the world’s largest exporter; in the same year it overtook Japan to become the world’s second-largest economy; at the beginning of 2011, it overtook the United States to become the world’s largest manufacturing nation, a position the United States had held for 110 years; in 2020, if not earlier, it will overtake the United States to become the world’s largest economy; and perhaps not too long afterwards, when the renminbi is finally made convertible, the latter will replace the dollar as the world’s leading reserve currency. With each landmark we move a little further away from a world shaped by the United States and toward one shaped by China.

There has been a strong tendency in the West to see this world in narrowly economic terms, with China assuming similar characteristics as the United States during the process of its rise and the global furniture that we are familiar with remaining little changed. This is to greatly underestimate the nature and import of China’s rise. It will not even be true economically. When China overtakes the United States, it will still be both a developed and a developing economy; it will continue to be a huge trading nation, on a far greater scale than the United States; and it will be far more orientated towards the developing world, to which it presently sends over half its exports, than Washington has been.

Nor will the international financial system remain more or less unchanged. The only way that the IMF and the World Bank will survive China’s rise to economic ascendancy is if they come to reflect the new configuration of global economic power: in other words, if, in time, China comes to call the shots in the IMF. But even in this eventuality, it is entirely possible that the IMF will be effectively replaced by a different kind of body, one more in line with Chinese interests and aspirations, along with those of other developing countries like India. In this context, it should be noted that already, in 2009-10, the China Development Bank and the China Exim Bank between them lent more to the developing world than the World Bank, which suggests that the latter could, within a decade or so, become increasingly marginalized. Then factor in the renminbi as the dominant world currency, with Shanghai replacing New York as the global financial centre, and we are clearly looking at a very different world economic order.

Furthermore, the accompanying geopolitical and cultural changes are likely to be even more profound. China may have called itself a nation-state for the last century, but it remains primarily a civilization-state, as it has been for more than two millennia. Whereas the Western sense of identity is overwhelmingly shaped by their history as nation-states, the Chinese sense of identity is rooted in and shaped by their civilizational past. It is impossible to comprehend the very distinctive nature of the Chinese state, and the roots of its legitimacy, or similarly distinctive Chinese attitudes towards race, otherwise. Likewise, to make sense of China’s rapidly changing relationship with East Asia, it is necessary to take account of the tributary system which was the organizing basis of China’s relations with its neighbors for thousands of years until around a century ago. Indeed, China’s present claim on the Spratly and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea, which is based on inter-temporal law rather than territorial water law, derives directly from its history as a civilization-state. Those who believe that China’s rise to global hegemony will in practice change little can only hold to this view by ignoring China’s quite different history to that of the West.

Will this Chinese world be better or worse than the Western-made world we are familiar with? In one very important sense it will be better: while the West has never represented much more than a sliver of humanity, China and India between them constitute 38 percent of the world’s population. Their rise represents a huge rough and ready democratization of the world. Nor should we fear this world because it will be so unfamiliar to us. We need to understand and embrace it: the sooner the better, because, willy-nilly, we have no choice. In time it will come to pass.

Image by Ricky Qi

More by

Martin Jacques

Topics:

• Economic Development
• International Institutions
• Great Powers
• Trade
• Rising Powers
• Politics

Regions:

• China

Tags:

• China Development

• Economy of the People's Republic of China
• International Monetary Fund

Neolibs and Neocons, United and Interchangeable

When it comes to foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the Middle East, there is not a whole lot of separation between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Republicans tend to be more bellicose in their statements, but Democrats have more than made up for that with their steely resolve to take the fight to the enemy wherever he might be. Both Republicans and Democrats reflexively support Israel, and nearly all candidates are in agreement on a number of other areas, including an aggressive policy toward Iran.

This unanimity is not particularly surprising as there is little or no serious debate on foreign policy and many of the leading candidates' advisers are graduates of the same school of thought, i.e., that the United States must use its military power to impose certain standards on the rest of the world.

Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.
The key to understanding the direction that candidates will take is to examine their foreign policy advisers. The candidates themselves, with one or two exceptions, know little about the world and its problems. They operate on a basis of packaged responses to set questions and are essentially looking for quick, soundbite solutions that will enable them to be characterized as strong on national security. Apart from that, most would be quite willing to leave the subject alone. How they think is processed and filtered by their advisers, most of whom appear to believe that the American public has an unending appetite for overseas adventures in spite of the fact that such policies have brought nothing but grief for the past 15 years. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are shy about using force. Bill Clinton enforced sanctions on Iraq that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands; he killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians when he bombed Serbia; and he was more than willing to use cruise missiles against civilian targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. George Bush has accepted a rather broader mandate, invading two countries and bombing several more, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead.

The two leading Democratic candidates for president are undeniably Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary is regarded as by far the more conservative candidate in that she has carefully triangulated her potential supporters and is unwilling to say that her vote in the Senate in support of the Iraq war was a mistake. She has also positioned herself with the Israel lobby through her pledge to disarm Iran by whatever means necessary and her threat to use nuclear weapons on terrorists. Her foreign policy advisers are a who's who of neoliberal hawks, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who famously believed that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was "worth it." Clinton is also being advised by Richard Holbrooke, who is reported to be close to Paul Wolfowitz. Holbrooke is a possible candidate for secretary of state if Clinton is elected president. Holbrooke has been a supporter of the Iraq war, and he was an architect of the 1999 bombing of Serbia. Strobe Talbott, who advised Bill Clinton and was also involved with the bombing of Serbia, is reported to be another Hillary adviser.

Barack Obama is somewhat more enigmatic, but his recent ill-advised pledge to attack Pakistan if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf does not do something about the Taliban and al-Qaeda shows that he is working hard to catch up. Obama's key advisers who speak for him on foreign policy include Gregory Craig, Anthony Lake, and Samantha Power. Craig is a leading Washington lawyer who was a White House special counsel under Bill Clinton and defended the president in his impeachment trial. Lake was also a Bill Clinton adviser who was involved in the Bosnian conflict. Power is an Irish-born Harvard professor from the Kennedy School who is regarded as an expert on Third World issues. None of the three is considered to be particularly partisan on any foreign policy issues but genocide, which Power has written a book about, but Obama is also accelerating his efforts to woo Jewish donors and to improve his standing with AIPAC, which has been suspicious of him because of youthful indiscretions that included expressions of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. He recently appointed Eric Lynn to develop an aggressive program of outreach to the Jewish community on his record of support for Israel, which he claims is unwavering. Obama fully endorsed Israel's invasion of Lebanon last year, and he has also cited his more recent sponsorship of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of May 2007, another irresponsible piece of legislation by Congress that will increase the suffering of the Iranian people while doing nothing to change the country's leadership. He has pledged that Iran will not be allowed to threaten Israel through its nuclear program, but he is vague on exactly what he would do to stop it.

Giuliani heads the pack of Republicans in terms of sheer neocon manpower. His appointment of Norman Podhoretz to his team of foreign policy advisers might be a shrewd bid to compete with the Democrats for Jewish money for his campaign, but it might also be reflective of a genuine inclination toward a policy of all aggression, all the time. Giuliani has endorsed the use of force to disarm Iran, including using nuclear weapons. Podhoretz has called for a World War IV against Islamofascism, which presumably means a war against all Muslim countries until they surrender. Giuliani is also being advised by Martin Kramer, a leading neocon who is associated with the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The other two serious Republican contenders, John McCain and Mitt Romney, are also being advised on foreign policy by neoconservatives. McCain is supported by Robert Kagan, a noted American Enterprise Institute chickenhawk and the author of the surge policy, and former CIA director Jim Woolsey, who, like Podhoretz, has called for a World War against Islam. Leading neocon lobbyist Randy Scheunemann, who headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and was on the board of the Project for the New American Century, completes the McCain foreign policy and security team. There are reports that McCain will lose some of his advisers as his campaign is in trouble and that they might gravitate to Romney and Giuliani. McCain also had considerable interaction with neocon elder statesman Richard Perle in the early days of his campaign, but Perle has decided that McCain cannot win the nomination. Perle is deferring judgment on where he should go next. Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Henry Kissinger are also reported to be giving McCain advice.
Mitt Romney is being advised by Dan Senor, former AIPAC staffer who graduated to the post of official spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. He is also relying on J. Cofer Black, former chief of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and now head of Total Intel, a Beltway bandit that provides security services to the government.

Dark horse and undeclared Republican candidate Fred Thompson is being advised by Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the vice president, and Mark Esper, a Lebanese Christian who is one of the few neocons from an Arab background.
All of the Republican and Democratic presidential aspirants appear to believe that a hard line on foreign policy makes them less vulnerable to attack in their run for the nomination. It is very discouraging to note that the advocates of the Iraq war, which is almost universally seen as Washington's greatest foreign policy blunder of the past hundred years, are continuing to play a major role in the shaping of policy for the next generation of political leaders of both parties.

Bill O'Reilly Despises Progressives, But He's Okay with Warmongering Globalist Neo-Liberals...

May 20, 2012 at 09:42:34

So... Bill O'Reilly Despises Progressives, But He's Okay with Liberals... Progressive Leaders Comment

Earlier this month, on May 8th, I gritted my teeth to do what I do less and less anymore-- switched to Fox News to check out the "enemy."  Bill O'Reilly was on, interviewing John Lovitz, who'd recently been critical of Obama. During the ten minutes I tolerated watching the Faux network, O'Reilly said, literally, "I despise progressives." He then went on to say something, and this in not necessarily the literal quote, "but liberals are okay."



That really struck me, especially in light of Chris Hedges book, Death of the Liberal Class, which I discussed with him in an interview on my radio show about 18 months ago (podcast here: Chris Hedges; Death of the Liberal Class and a Call For Rebellion )

The truth is some people consider the words liberal and progressive interchangeable. Others see progressives as different. In polls I commissioned by the Zogby organization in 2006, I found that progressives considered themselves left of liberal. That's my take and I think the take of Hedges and others.

O'Reilly's stark remark got me thinking. Why would he be okay with liberals but despise progressives?  Me, I tend to lump liberals with Obama Democrats-- who have been lulled, like boiling frogs, to accept more and more evil through the lesser of two-evilism that they keep embracing as they've accepted Democratic leaders who look more and more like Republicans. Hell, I think Obama is, outside of women's rights, to the right of Reagan and Nixon.

But I wanted to get an idea how other progressives thought about O'Reilly's remarks. So I wrote to some of the people I think of as progressive leaders-- but only people I thought might reply. Here's what I wrote to the first ones;

yesterday Bill O'Reilly said he "despises progressives" But he's okay with liberals.
Any thoughts on this? I'm working on an article in response to it. Would love a sentence or paragraph from you.

 Once I got started, I began thinking of other progressive leaders, and then I thought, "who really are the progressive leaders. What do I know? I call my radio show bottom up radio, and try to walk the bottom up talk, so I put the question to my readers at Opednews.com, with an article, Who are the Leading, Top Progressives?   Commenters added some great suggestions-- some people I didn't have contact information for and some I did. I emailed the ones I thought would respond.

Here are the responses that came in. 

Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report,

A progressive seeks change that radically transforms power relationships in society, with the goal of eliminating, to the greatest extent possible, material and other socially-produced disparities among human beings. Progressives will argue about what is possible, but not about the goal: a truly democratic human polity.

Ray MGovern, former CIA Intelligence Analyst

Rob, I'm actually a progressive conservative. You are no doubt aware of JFK's great quote on liberals, cited below: John F. Kennedy said this about liberals:  If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination ( 14 September 1960 )

Here, for what worth, is my comment:

So why in the world would Bill O'Reilly be "okay with liberals?"  Perhaps for the same reason the military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media complex (MICMIC) is "okay" with drone strikes that multiply the "enemy."

Deprived of the chance to excoriate people who (in the words John Kennedy used to define liberals) "welcome new ideas and care about the welfare of people," O'Reilly would be unable to cater to people who resist new ideas and think only of themselves.  Similarly, deprived of the exponential growth in the number of "enemies" from drone strikes, the MICMIC, too, would fall on hard times.

Ray explained what he meant by conservative progressive:

Fifty-one years ago when I was commissioned a 2/Lt in the U.S. Army, I swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  I took that oath freely, without reservation, and with the clear understanding that it carried NO expiration date.

I still take this very seriously.  To "protect and defend the Constitution:" That is conservative to the core.

I have talked to other officers who take their oath just as seriously.  Many of them, like me, are trying to be faithful conservatives: faithful to our oath; faithful to the Constitution.  We are not shying away from tough discernment as to what this "worst of times" for the Constitution requires from us, if we are to be faithful.

This has nothing to do with "patriotic" rhetoric and flag waving.  It has to do with deciding who are the present-day enemies of the Constitution -- and putting our bodies where our oaths dictate they must go.

Many of us, including me, consider ourselves progressive, as well, inasmuch as we are not hide-bound to the past and are open to new ideas EXCEPT FOR our sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Hide-bound to the Constitution, yes; hide-bound to the past, no.

Noam Chomsky

The US has the most massive and effective propaganda system the world has ever seen.  It includes the huge public relations industry (which in more honest days, described itself as dedicated to "propaganda"), the corporate media, and in fact a lot more.  The US is the only industrial country where one cannot (on pain of exclusion from polite society) describe oneself as a socialist (and Communist parties function freely elsewhere).  After "socialist" was demonized, attention turned next to "liberal" -- now almost a term of abuse.  So the people who in other societies would be called social democrats, socialist, etc. ("liberal" is a special US term) now call themselves "progressives," which seems to have less dangerous connotations, though people who are dedicated slaves of private power are working hard to demonize that term too.

Jane Hamsher

It's a little weird, because historically the progressive movement was defined by muckrakers who fought for transparency and holding government accountable, whereas liberals are identified with the social safety net, the New Deal and "big government."  O'Reilly claims to champion the former and despise the latter.

I imagine he means he hates young people, who are more likely to call themselves "progressives," as opposed to their grandparents who still use the word "liberal."  He's probably just pandering to his geriatric audience and doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Cindy Sheehan

Of course he is okay with "liberals" because it seems that liberal has grown to mean a person who is slightly left of center and supports the status quo as much as possible. I am not too crazy about liberals as they stand now and have (not too surprisingly) an opposing viewpoint of O'Reilly. To me, "progressive" is  farther to the left of liberal and advocates for progress to the left in particularly social programs domestically and for the end to foreign wars of aggression--that's why O'Reilly "despises" them. But, he's a moron and we shouldn't really fret about anything he says.

John NIchols  thenation.com

I give Bill O'Reilly credit for recognizing a distinction between progressives and liberals. It's real. Progressivism is a distinct political stream within the left politics of the United States. Rooted in rural populist traditions, progressivism has traditionally been more questioning of political and economic elites, more supportive of direct democracy (initiatives, referendums, recalls) and far more inclined to believe that politics is not just about elections. The great progressive leader of the early 20th century, Robert M. La Follette, said it best: "democracy is a life." His point was that activists have to be constantly engaged, constantly pushing for real and radical change. That sort of engagement is what elites fear, as it takes away the advantages they historically have gained as a result of their dominance of parties, government institutions and the media. This is why Bill O'Reilly despises progressives. He fears a political force that, historically, has gotten Americans focused on and active around core economic and social justice issues. And if we look at recent developments in the U.S., especially the uprisings in Wisconsin and Ohio and other states, he has reason to be frightened. Cautious liberalism is being rejected as a growing number of Americans determine that they want a real politics and a real democracy.

Danny Schechter of media channel.org

I am among the few progressives that appeared on O'Reilly's "SHOW" years ago. It is a show, showing off a parade of attitudes calculated to build audience among his think alikes. His problem is now, Glenn Beck, who out flanked him on the right with many of those who tired of Bill's well-honed shticks, now considering him a 'liberal," a sign of how effective Foxygen programming has been on viewers who only await the sound of familiar message points.

When big Bill wanders into being serious, and taking himself even more seriously, he is forced to acknowledge the limits of his blather, but always with one eye over his shoulder to see how his kool aid is playing. From time to time, he has to make a correction, not of facts but language, and that's what he's doing now with the distinction he is trying to make between liberals and progressives. He knows his role is to divide without being conquered. That is one way to do it, to try to wean liberals and give them reasons to watch.

Kevin Gosztola of firedoglake.com, formerly of opednews.com

I tend to use "liberal" to describe activity by left-leaning people, who presumably support the Democratic Party. I use liberal to describe people who are willing to be gutless and not try and force President Barack Obama (or any Democratic president or politician) to make the changes they think are needed in government and society. 

I use "progressive" to describe people who are doing good work. They are engaged in activism. They believe in the system but are willing to push up against Democratic Party politics much more than "liberals." They aren't "lefties." They aren't completely radical. They do go to the root of a lot of problems, but they may still find the system can be salvaged and isn't as broken as "lefties" think.  

The reality is that both liberals or progressives fold to Democrats and can be weak in their activism because they find incremental change acceptable, they don't think a politician will budge, they want to take what they can get from the system, they aren't "purists" or "sanctimonious." 

People at Firedoglake actually get called "Firebaggers." It's a pejorative slung by "liberals" to describe a crowd of people who think what Obama or liberal politicians do is never enough. This is a term that people at the website have embraced. "Firebaggers" now means people who stick to their principles. If something was wrong when Bush did it, it is most definitely wrong and to be opposed if Obama continues it and does it too.

Kevin Zeese

Not surprised modern liberals have come to work inside the system seek modest and insufficient reforms; and even support war while many progressives seek radical transformational change and challenge the system. O'Reilly and many liberals are part of the system while progressives see it as corrupt, dysfunctional and non-responsive.

Thom Hartmann

Sad to hear that Bill O'Reilly rejects such good progressive Republicans as Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt...

After doing this little project, I finally got around to interviewing Bruce Levine on my radio show: Learned Helplessness in America; Bruce E. Levine Author of Get Up Stand Up; Uniting populists, energizing the defeated and battling the corporate elite
 
He writes and talks about how many Americans have been victims of learned helplessness. I think the liberals O'Reilly approves of are among these. They are cowed and beaten down and have lost hope that they can do much of anything. Good liberals. Well behaved liberals, not the same as progressives liberals.


Are you a liberal and think I'm wrong? Prove me wrong. DO something! Get active.
Are you a progressive? Aren't you proud Bill O'Reilly despises you?

Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com

With his experience as architect and founder of a technorati top 100 blog, he is also a new media / social media consultant and trainer for corporations, non-profits, entrepreneurs and authors.



Rob is a frequent Speaker on the bottom up revolution, politics, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates, and optimizing tapping the power of new media. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out A Voice For Truth - ROB KALL | OM Times Magazine and this article.

And there are Rob's quotes, here.

To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video

My radio show, The Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived at www.opednews.com/podcasts Or listen to it streaming, live at www.wnjc1360.com

Rob also host a health/mind/body/heart/spirit radio show-- the Rob Kall Futurehealth radio show. Check out podcasts from it at futurehealth.org/podcasts

Follow me on Twitter

A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.

-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.

Recent press coverage in the Wall Street Journal: Party's Left Pushes for a Seat at the Table

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.