Toward An America Gulag

The John Birch Society ^ | August 18. 2002 | William Norman Griggs

[Cato]

We ain't in Kansas anymore.

CATO

[dighton]

Everyone got dragged to the camps here.

[DentsRun]

This is a great system (for a totalitarian country.) If you find another American you don't like, all you have to do is designate him an enemy combatant and all of a sudden he has no rights. If Hillary were president and using this system, Rush Limbaugh would end up in Leavenworth.

[Texasforever]

This article makes less sense every time it is posted. It does not age well.

[Numbers Guy]

This article makes less sense every time it is posted

I heard some Bircher recently saying that the whole Soviet collapse thing was a fake to lull us into a false sense of security and bail out the Commies in Russia, who are just lying in the weeds waiting to take over.

What I'm amazed at, is given that the Birchers think every President since Eisenhower was either a Commie or a dupe, how has the U.S. survived the Communist onslaught for this long?

[Texasforever]

What can I say? It must be something in the water.

[Texasforever]

What can I say? It must be something in the water.

[Texasforever]

The gubiment made me do that.

[al-andalus]

Maybe flouride.

[Texasforever]

Give da man a ceegar! LOL Psst, you are showing your age.

[joesnuffy]

The father of the mobile home...was a JB'r

[steve50]

Ya, gotta watch that trailer trash don't we, they're not like us.

[ewillers]

I agree. Some, like Numbers Guy, may ridicule the JBS for being wary of Big Government and conspiracies to expand its powers to even more menancing levels; but, it is better to be a little too "paranoid" about losing our liberties than to be too naive and complacent.

The JBS after all was responsible for republishing the libertarian classic The Poeple's Pottage by Garet Garrett which includes the essay "The Revolution Was" -- and this came out long ago. What we need is a revolution to roll back those socialist programs and Marxist planks that were instituted during the regimes of Wilson, FDR, and others since then (esp. LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton).

[elhombrelibre]

JBS makes the right look silly. They lie as much as the left and they bring scorn on those serious about the constitution and liberty.

[fporretto]

Griggs's argument has much to commend it.

While we recognize that war differs qualitatively from peace, the Administration has made no attempt to draw the qualitative distinctions that should separate accused civilians from enemy combatants. If this difference is left nebulous, and subject to "flexible reinterpretation" by whoever holds the Administration, then anyone who differs dramatically and vocally from the policy of this Administration -- or future Administrations -- could be in for an exceedingly rough ride.

The old standard was that an "enemy combatant" was someone you'd captured on the battlefield, wearing the uniform of the enemy, or at least visibly bearing arms in company with the enemy. That was the trigger, if you'll pardon the choice of words, for all the classical protections afforded to captured soldiers under international rules of civilized combat. It was also the rationale for the summary execution of saboteurs and spies, who were 1) conducting war against you within your own land, but 2) not doing so in uniform, and thereby assuming the appearance of one of your own, protected civil populace.

The sin of the Administration to this point has been to downplay the combatant / accused civilian distinction to the point of effacing it completely. For the sake of our freedom, the very security against arbitrary exertions of power we claim to be defending, we must unearth and revitalize these rules. Once that's been done, let Hamdi, Padilla et al. be re-examined under them. It's nothing more than justice -- and justice is most endangered when we propose to suspend it in treating with persons we find repugnant.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Roscoe]

Some, like Numbers Guy, may ridicule the JBS for being wary of Big Government and conspiracies to expand its powers to even more menancing levels; but, it is better to be a little too "paranoid" about losing our liberties than to be too naive and complacent.

I think I know where Gary Allen's actual typewriter is hidden.

[SEA]

What I'm amazed at, is given that the Birchers think every President since Eisenhower was either a Commie or a dupe, how has the U.S. survived the Communist onslaught for this long?

I don't believe that is an accurate statement about the John Birch Society. The Society believes that Communism is one part of a larger movement toward world government (and world domination by a self-appointed ruling class), which has not slowed one bit since the fall of the USSR. It would be more accurate to say that these Presidents were accomplices in moving the US toward world government, which was also a goal of Communism.

To see how we have held up, ask yourself if we have more independence today than we did twenty, fifty, one hundred years ago.

[glc1173@aol.com]

"If you find another American you don't like, all you have to do is designate him an enemy combatant and all of a sudden he has no rights. If Hillary were president and using this system, Rush Limbaugh would end up in Leavenworth."

If Hillary were president, Red Nation would become ungovernable for Washington within 48 hrs. after her inauguration!

You are correct that she'd be stupid - and institute some kind of overt police state not limited just to Arab and Moslem aliens. In doing so, she'd - fast - convince every redneck here in Red Nation that we'd have nothing to lose by starting the leaderless-resistance uprising outlined in Unintended Consequences; Washington simply lacks enough troops - particularly loyal ones - and fedcops to deal with such a scenario in the huge contiguous area known as Red Nation.

Hillary winning in 2004 could be the very best thing that ever happened for Red Nation!

Do you know what street spy cameras and traffic cameras look like - and their weaknesses?

[ewillers]

Right and Left Paranoia

Right Wing (in America) means favoring private property, individual rights (private enclaves of freedom for peaceful people), free markets, and constitutional limitations on government

Left Wing means opposition to private property and the desire for the government to take over and control everything (well at least the major industries) in one big government monopoly.

Right-Wing Paranois - fear of Big Government abuse of power and tyranny

Left-Wing Paranoia - fear of corporations and Big Business abuse of power The Left's phobia is misplaced or excessive. Neither corporations nor any other business in the market can actually force (use violence on) people to make us deal with them, buy from them, or work for them. It's all by voluntary choice and consensual contract. Businesses -- even big corporations -- have to rely on persuasion -- advertising, marketing, attractive alternative pricing, new products, etc, not coercion. Any coercive power a corporation may have is from its association with or privileges from . . . . ta-da! . . . interventionist government! The source is political government -- Big Government with the authority to take from some and intervene to dish out goodies and privileges to others.

So, it seems to me, if one really wants to keep business abuse of power at bay, one should advocate a policy of laissez faire, viz., allowing anything that's peaceful (non-violent and non-fraudulent) but having the government come down on all fours on criminals and foreign aggressors who pose a threat to peaceful people. Laissez faire means extending the First Amendment's "disestablishment clause" (with government taking no sides and giving no privileges to any church or sect) to all market (i.e., non-violent) activities.

It seems to me the Right's concern about the growth of Big Government is much more rational and on-target than the Left's paranoia about big or little business. Businessmen are driven by the selfish desire for profit and the avoidance of losses, and they can only become wealthy by producing something that other people want and are willing to pay for.

Mrs. Fields may charge a dollar a cookie -- but nobody is forced to buy the cookie. If somebody buys the cookie, it is because they want the cookie more than they dollar they are giving in exchange for it. The same cannot be said for government programs: you are foced to pay into FICA taxes whether you like it or not, whether you will ever live to receive SS benefits or not, whether you agree with it or not. It is compulsory, not voluntary. You are given no choice; the money is taken right out of your paycheck and immediately spent by government. Mrs. Fields may use advertising to seduce or persuade people to decide to buy her product -- but no violence is involved. By contrast, virtually all government programs are funded by the violence of coercive taxation and operate by coercive regulations and controls.