Monthly Archives: June 2008

Presidential Candidate Recognized for PSYOP Expertise

Obama The PSYOP President?  Colonel Dietz asks.

In short, Senator Obama appears to have an understanding of PSYOP and IO. Should he get elected, it would be refreshing to see a Commander in Chief who knows a little more about the pen than the sword.

Beggin’ the Colonel’s pardon, but almost all American politicians who started out as lawyers have always known a lot more about the power of the pen than they did about the sword.

Obama The Dezinformatiya agit-prop President.

UPDATE:  Who’s responsible for shutting down a number of anti-Obama Blogspot accounts?

He hasn’t even got in yet and his minions are implementing Counterpropaganda Restrictive Measures and Computer Network Attack on Oppositional Elements.

I can see the handwriting on the wall.  Former Regime Loyalists and unbellyfeelers are to be purged from the blogosphere.

Advertisements

Comments Off on Presidential Candidate Recognized for PSYOP Expertise

Filed under PSYOP

The honor and the reputation of news professionals

L’Affaire Enderlin could happen anywhere in the West.  Dan Rather wishes he was French.

a dangerous American trend of “vindictive pressure groups interfering with news organizations,” now unfortunately crossing the Atlantic.

“Americans have been under the gun of such people for some time, but France used to be free of this kind of thing. [These groups] are paranoid, they’re persistent, they never give up, they sap the energy of good reporters. I can’t imagine how much money France 2 has spent defending this case. Charles Enderlin is an excellent journalist! I don’t care if it’s the Virgin Birth affair, I would tend to believe him. Someone like Charles simply doesn’t make a story up.”

“Look, this whole thing has been a nightmare for Charles. He’s received hate mail, his wife has been threatened, he’s about to have a nervous breakdown. You want the truth? I don’t give a flying monkey about the case. I signed [a petition that was whipped up by his friends at Le Nouvel Observateur, France’s premier left-wing newsweekly] for Charles. In all honesty, I think he edited his film on deadline and was careless, and afterwards he didn’t want to admit he’d screwed up. A one-minute film, and it snowballed from there. Don’t put in anything that might identify me, I don’t want him to think I don’t believe 100 percent in what he says, he’d be devastated.”

“Do I think Charles Enderlin lost a good opportunity to own up to a mistake early in the day, and spare himself this anguish? Of course. You know how we work in a hurry? Guy sends him pictures from Gaza, tells him the Israelis shot the kid, he believes him-I mean, even the Israeli Defense Forces spokesman believed it! But you can’t own up one, two years after the fact. It’s too late, it would mean you abdicate. It’s a nice job Charles has, he’s nearing retirement age. I don’t think he wanted to rock the boat. You know Charles, he’s always been status-conscious; he likes being the France 2 man in Israel. Plus, these people behind their computers, they’re not real journalists, are they? You can’t come from your day job and blog at night and imagine you’ve become a reporter. It doesn’t don’t work like that. There are standards.”

Supercilious pricks are endemic to journalism.

Comments Off on The honor and the reputation of news professionals

Filed under Old Media

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Is An Individual Right

From the most excellent SCOTUSblog:

 Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

 (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.  Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.  Neither

 

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, norPresser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation.   United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e. those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.  Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.  Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total banon handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for thelawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argumentthat the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.  Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 Comments

Filed under G-2

Why the Wire Service I’m Boycotting Sucks

Propaganda, Lies, and Wire Service Articles

1. Decide which side is the good guys. This can be based on your ethnic-communal background (unless you are Jewish since then you must lean over backward to prove yourself fair by supporting the other side), political ideology, or–if all else fails–whichever side is weaker. (The word “underdog” might not be PC any more so I will avoid it.)

2. Slant your article completely in favor of the “good guys” because they are after all the good guys. Writing an advocacy article for them is thus a good and moral deed. There can be no compromise with evil and since the bad guys lie all the time why even bother to listen to their arguments.

Incidentally, questions of past credibility are irrelevant. If one side can be shown to have lied repeatedly that doesn’t count. Pointing this out could get you accused of racism or imperialism, while the “good guys,” once so designated, are allowed to lie because they are pursuing a “good cause.” Governments are held to lie always, especially if they are democratic ones.

And be sure to employ as many local stringers with close ties to the “freedom fighter’s” media apparat as you can.  Makes for prize-winning fauxtography.

Comments Off on Why the Wire Service I’m Boycotting Sucks

Filed under Old Media

The great challenge of the 21st century

New John Fonte Article: “Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation State: What Is the Best Regime?”

Comments Off on The great challenge of the 21st century

Filed under Idea War

This Is Profound

Next time you get a break, wrap your brain around Politics as Pathology.

Not an easy read, but worth your time.  Some nuggets:

 . . . the contrasting views of man’s essential nature as either innately fixed; self-focused; self-reliant and responsible for his actions and their consequences; or alternatively, as compliant with, and amenable to, improvement under the (assumed benevolent) direction of a “morally superior breed of leaders”.

Much of the contentiousness between the Conservative/Right and the Liberal/Left can be understood on the basis of our re-defined appellations of Conservatives as Logical-Rationalists (objectivists) vs. Liberals as (subjectivist) Emotional-Intuitives. The former assemble available information and reason sequentially to a conclusion based on the available facts. In political matters the latter respond more emotionally to issues and intuitively arc to a conclusion based on feelings. Whatever information seems to support those feelings is selected post hoc and all else rejected as unimportant, wrong or outright lies.  Exasperation is often the only product when the two face-off in debate. No one gets their mind changed.

It has been the extreme Left that has been the socially disruptive, historically deadly, nihilistic and revolutionary political force throughout the twentieth century. It is the radical Left which insists on jettisoning a highly productive capitalist system and replacing it with a collectivism that has been an abysmal failure wherever it’s been tried. [54] It is therefore essential to question the motivations of those who press that agenda.

H/T: Blair at American Thinker, 04:23.

5 Comments

Filed under Idea War

History is Already being Written

And President George W. Bush will come out looking a lot better than most people think.

Why Iraq Was Inevitable

. . . by the time George Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the United States was already at war with Iraq, and in fact had been at war for a decade,

Then came September 11.

Saddam’s ties to terrorist groups . . . Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Front, and Yasir Arafat’s private army (Force 17) . . . Islamic Jihad . . . Saddam was willing to work with any terrorists who targeted the United States and its allies, and he reached out to al-Qaeda-affiliated groups (and vice-versa) whenever the occasion warranted.

Saddam had the WMD know-how, as well as probable stockpiles, that terrorist groups like al Qaeda might want for future operations.

Saddam’s declared antipathy toward the United States. In 1993 he had hatched a plot to assassinate his then-nemesis, former President Bush, during a visit by the latter to Kuwait. A “general suspicion” among Clinton-administration officials, in Pollack’s words, was that Saddam was also “working on a variety of terrorist contingencies” in the event that the United States ever tried to topple his regime. He was the only world leader who actually applauded the attacks of 9/11.

Saddam was emerging, like a great malignant moth, from the containment regime in place since the end of the first Gulf war. By the end of the 1990’s, sanctions had become a joke, proving less a liability to Saddam than an asset in rebuilding his power. In October 2000 a supposedly “contained” Iraq had boldly renewed its military cooperation with Syria, moving divisions to the Syrian border and even deploying troops into Syria itself to put pressure on Israel. Since then, Saddam’s attacks on American and British air patrols over Iraq had grown more intense.

President Bush didn’t kick the can down the road. 

He is almost out the door, a double-amputee Mallard, and I quit carrying his water, but for all his errors of omission and commission, for all his failures, he deserves better than what he is getting.  Being the focus of so much negative psychic energy from so many Americans has taken its toll.  The idea that Americans can deny legitimacy to an administration and emotionally secede from the Union because their hatred for the President has been inflamed by agit-prop heats up the Cold Civil War, and eventually the Long War and the Hot Civil War merge in a great cleansing of the wicked, near and far, foreign and domestic.

Who will the BDS-afflicted hate when he’s gone?  People like me.  Feuds have gone out of style in the Amriki tribe,  but the ancestral memory remains in some of us. 

Starry-eyed, leg-tingling hopeful changers would do well not to awaken that memory. 

Comments Off on History is Already being Written

Filed under Morale Operations