[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: American Empire Demands a Caesar
Source: The American Conservative
URL Source: http://www.theamericanconservative. ... rican-empire-demands-a-caesar/
Published: Jun 25, 2018
Author: Bruce Fein
Post Date: 2018-06-27 19:38:40 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2974
Comments: 35

Trump is hardly our first emperor. The warfare state has been trampling the Constitution for a long time.

The United States has adorned its president with extravagance that makes Roman emperors appear frugal by comparison. And such visible signs of the deification of our president are complemented by legal doctrines that echo Richard Nixon’s once discredited claim to David Frost: “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

These extra-constitutional developments reflect the transformation of the United States from a republic, whose glory was liberty and whose rule of law was king, to an empire, whose glory is global dominion and whose president is law. The Constitution’s architects would be shocked to learn that contemporary presidents play prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to any person on the planet deemed a threat to national security on the basis of secret, untested evidence known only to the White House.

An empire demands a Caesar and blind obedience from its citizens. World leadership through the global projection of military force cannot be exercised with checks and balances and a separation of powers that arrests speed and invites debate. Napoleon lectured: “Nothing in war is more important than unity of command…. Better one bad general than two good ones.” And Lord Tennyson, saluting the British Empire, versified in The Charge of the Light Brigade:

“Forward, the Light Brigade!” 

Was there a man dismayed?

Not though the soldier knew

Someone had blundered.

Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die.

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

As justice requires the appearance of justice, a Caesar requires the appearance of a Caesar. Thus is the president protected by platoons of Secret Service agents. The White House, by closing previously open avenues through the heart of the capital and shielding the president from citizen detractors, has become a castle. The White House staff has expanded and aggrandized power at the expense of Cabinet officials confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Debate, encouraged by the separation of powers, is superfluous where support for empire is underwritten by the multi-trillion-dollar military-industrial-counterterrorism complex, as it is in the United States. The Republican and Democratic parties are unified behind at least seven ongoing unconstitutional presidential wars and climbing trillion-dollar national security budgets.

Our warfare state has given birth to subsidiary surveillance, crony capitalism, and a welfare state. Congress and the judicial branch have become largely sound and fury, signifying nothing. The Constitution’s separation of powers is atrophying.

The life of the law is not justice but genuflections to power. It manufactures doctrines that honor the power principle that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. When the configuration of power changes, the law adapts accordingly. The adaptations may not be instantaneous, but they are inexorable. This is not surprising. Judges are not born like Athena from the head of Zeus. They are selected through a political process that vets them for compatibility with the views of their political benefactors. Benjamin Cardozo observed in The Nature of the Judicial Process: “The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by.”

The United States has become the largest and most actively garrisoned empire in history, built up by World War II and the 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union. Our empire has, among other things, approximately 800 military bases in more than 70 countries, over 240,000 active duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories, de facto or de jure commitments to defend 70 countries, and presidential wars as belligerents or co-belligerents in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The president has by necessity become a Caesar irrespective of whether the occupant of the White House possesses recessive or dominant genes. The law has adapted accordingly, destroying the Constitution like a wrecking ball.

At present, the president with impunity initiates war in violation of the Declare War Clause; kills American citizens in violation of the Due Process Clause; engages in indiscriminate surveillance his own citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment; substitutes executive agreements for treaties to circumvent the requirements of Senate ratifications by two-thirds majorities in violation of the Treaty Clause; substitutes executive orders for legislation in violation of Article I, section 1; issues presidential signing statements indistinguishable from line-item vetoes in violation of the Presentment Clause; wields vast standard-less delegations of legislative authority in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers; brandishes a state secrets privilege to block judicial redress for unconstitutional executive action in violation of due process; refuses submission to congressional oversight in violation of the congressional power of inquiry; and declines to defend defensible duly enacted laws in violation of the Take Care Clause.  

The Constitution will be reborn only if the American people reject their Empire in favor of a republic where individual liberty is the summum bonum. The odds of that happening are not good.

Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan and counsel to the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. He is a partner in the law firm of Fein & DelValle PLLC.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

#1. To: All (#0) (Edited)

Libertarian Bum Fights - By Mark Ames

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

—PKD

Last week, a low-grade civil war within the Edward Snowden camp broke out into the open when the attorney representing Snowden's father accused WikiLeaks and Glenn Greenwald of exploiting Snowden fils for personal profit.

Snowden's father, Lon Snowden, has been represented by GOP lobbyist Bruce Fein for roughly two months now — ever since Lon's first public appearance, when he begged his son not to do anything stupid. Like defecting to the Kremlin.

Apparently Lon Snowden wasn't supposed to say anything obvious like that because the next thing you know, a GOP lobbyist and Ron Paul advisor named Bruce Fein attached himself to Mr. Snowden's neck — and from that moment on, Mr. Snowden can't so much as fart in public without Bruce Fein sitting close enough to get first sniffs.

Bruce Fein is a sleazy old GOP operator with a murky relationship to US intelligence going back decades. Bruce Fein's wife, Mattie Fein, is also a longtime Washington DC lobbyist, most notably as founder of the Institute for Persian Studies, a pro-Israel front group pushing for war with Iran. Mattie Fein ran for Jane Harman's seat in 2010 as a Republican running on a platform that combined libertarianism with support for Israeli settler extremists.

These days, Mattie acts as Bruce's official spokesperson, which pretty much makes her Lon Snowden's spokesperson as well. It was in that capacity that Mattie Fein told the Wall Street Journal last week that Edward Snowden's father — her and Bruce Fein's client — is "concerned" that the NSA whistleblower is under the spell of some bad folks:

Mr. Fein's wife and spokeswoman, Mattie Fein, said Lon Snowden's legal team doesn't trust the intentions of Mr. Greenwald or WikiLeaks and worry they are giving Edward Snowden bad advice.

"The thing we have been most concerned about is that the people who have influence over Ed will try to use him for their own means," Ms. Fein said. "These guys have their own agenda here and we aren't so sure that it has Ed's best interest in mind."

Mr. Greenwald called the Feins' concerns ridiculous and said they had no standing in the matter as they have never had direct contact with Mr. Snowden.

"They have no connection to Ed," Mr. Greenwald said. "Snowden is not 14 years old. He is a very strong-willed, independent, autonomous adult and is making all his own choices about who he deals with and who represents him."

Ms. Fein said she was only voicing the concerns of Mr. Snowden's father, who wanted to make sure his son ended up with the best available legal defense and worried that the team being put together was focused on promoting the interests of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Let's leave aside the crazy and partly-substantiated basis for their "concern" — a deal Greenwald and WikiLeaks reportedly cut with NBC to arrange an exclusive interview with Snowden in Moscow, which came with either a $1,000,000 price tag demand (according to the Feins) or a $50,000 price tag (according to Greenwald). Whatever their unseemly squabbles over access to a high-value asset like Edward Snowden, what I find more interesting is what all the parties in this squabble share in common: their GOP libertarian politics, and their mutual adoration for celebrity father-son libertarians Ron and Rand Paul: Bruce Fein served as "senior legal advisor" for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign; Edward Snowden donated to Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign; Julian Assange announced last week that he's "a big admirer of Ron and Rand Paul"; and although Glenn Greenwald is slightly more coy about it, he too is a longtime defender and promoter of both Ron Paul and Rand Paul and the GOP libertarian politics that they espouse.

The squabbling Edward Snowden suitors share more than their mutual adoration for the Paul dynasty. Last year, Glenn Greenwald and Bruce Fein did two major college campus tours together, one in winter 2012, and another in autumn 2012. The Greenwald-Fein tours were by sponsored by two pro-Ron Paul libertarian outfits: Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a Ron PaulJugend outfit; and the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF), a libertarian outfit specializing in publishing far-right "historical revisionism" about who's really to blame for the Civil War and World War II, along with the usual libertarian drivel attacking public schools, civil rights laws, social welfare programs, and regulations on the tobacco industry.

The president and co-founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Jacob Hornberger, joined Greenwald and Fein for their college tour as the third celebrity libertarian on what was billed as the "Civil Liberties College Tour."

Hornberger has some pretty extreme libertarian views of his own that one assumes Greenwald must've not been aware of when he agreed to tour with him: Hornberger opposes civil rights laws banning racial discrimination, opposes minimum wage, opposes democracy, and argues that America's freest days were the pre-Civil War years, back in the halcyon days of plantation slavery (which Hornberger concedes was "an infringement"). As Hornberger writes,

Despite slavery and other infringements of individual freedom, Americans in the 1800s lived in the freest society in history. They could enter into any business or occupation without a license, permit or other evidence of governmental consent; enter into any mutually beneficial exchange with anyone in the world without permission from the political authorities, accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without threat of having it taken away through income taxation: dispose of their income in the manner they desired: educate their children in the way they chose, travel anywhere in the world without a passport or visa. This is what it once meant to be an American. This is what it once meant to be free.

Just breaks yer heart, don't it.

Every traveling circus needs a good emcee, and the Greenwald-Fein-Hornberger "Monsters Of Libertarian Rawq Tour 2012" didn't disappoint: each of their college campus performances featured "moderator" Jack Hunter, a.k.a. "The Southern Avenger." Yes, that Jack Hunter — Rand Paul's white supremacist staffer and ghost writer forced to resign in July after Hunter's bizarre pro-Confederacy puke ("John Wilkes Booth Was Right" ) was exposed. The "Southern Avenger" is a staffer at Young Americans for Liberty, sponsor of the Greenwald-Fein- Horberger college campus tour.

That's a lot of right-wing Confederate puke to process, I know. And believe me it gets much worse than this, so let me back up and repeat the scenario for you: Bruce Fein is Lon Snowden's attorney; Glenn Greenwald, civil liberties attorney and journalist, is Edward Snowden's closest confidant and the journalist to whom the NSA leaks have been entrusted. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have managed most of Edward Snowden's life in exile, including his defection to Russia. Bruce Fein, Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are all fans of Ron Paul and Rand Paul. Bruce Fein and Glenn Greenwald toured college campuses together last year speaking about "civil liberties" on a tour that included "Southern Avenger" neo- Confederate Rand Paul aide Jack Hunter, and the president of a far-right libertarian outfit that pushes neo-Confederate revisionist propaganda, and which also sponsored the tour. We also learned over the past few days that Julian Assange has allied with far-right parties in his native Australia.

And now, Bruce Fein — a man described by civil liberties attorney Mark Geragos as "one of the most repulsive human beings I have ever had the displeasure of meeting" — is accusing Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange of nefariously exploiting Edward Snowden.

Bruce Fein is an interesting character, a Zelig type in the American Republican right wing, seamlessly changing his colors with the times: Nixon Republican in the '70s, Reagan Republican in the '80s and '90s, Bush Republican until Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq debacle made that label bad — and that's when Bruce Fein rebranded himself into a Ron Paul libertarian, wiping away a career spent terrorizing the disadvantaged on behalf of the rich, violent and powerful. Today's Bruce Fein is an outraged Ron Paul libertarian — outraged at all the bad things Bruce Fein 1.0 helped perpetrate.

Fein first made the Big Leagues in the early 1980s, when he led Reagan's "Bob Jones Team" fighting to grant taxpayer subsidies to white supremacist schools like Bob Jones University. In pushing for Bob Jones U., Fein notoriously summed up his ideological philosophy:

"One of the problems we've had in the last 20 years is 'feel-good law.'"

By "feel-good" Fein of course meant "civil rights law." Fein's "Bob Jones Team" lost the Bob Jones case in the Supreme Court, but he won the heart of Reagan's saggy henchman Ed Meese. During the Reagan-Bush years, Fein vigorously argued that corporations had the right to discriminate against HIV-positive employees; opposed affirmative action, which he called "benign apartheid," and opposed the Americans With Disabilities Act, in a 1990 USA Today op-ed headlined "Disabled don't deserve gold-plated justice." As for Fein's position on government leaks and leakers, the headline to Fein's New York Times editorial, "A Tight Plug on Intelligence Leaks" should answer that.

Indeed, Fein denounced the Miranda ruling saying it "undermines effective law enforcement," and supported mandatory drug testing as, "a reasonable price for civilized society and national strength that benefits all." In case you think that was just Fein's youthful folly, in 2004, Fein used the Valerie Plame leak to argue that journalists should not be granted constitutional protections for their sources in national security cases:

The free press defense to the subpoenas advanced by Messrs. Cooper and Russert was that confidential sources are indispensable to investigative journalism. But the assertion is dubious, and in any event should bow in a narrow category of cases where the sources themselves are government officials implicated in national security crimes.

Fein was also a big supporter of both wars against Iraq. In January 1991, during the first Gulf War, Fein defended the FBI's harassment of Arab-Americans, telling USA Today,

"Arab-Americans are a logical starting point when the FBI has limited resources. Should they be calling up Buddhists to find out about (terrorist leader) Abu Abbas?...There has never been a time when civil liberties have been more protected."

But those sentiments are downright liberal compared to the Bruce Fein who defended Dubya's Iraq War and his War On Terrorism. Fein proposed a theory that since Americans are ignorant about the root causes of radical Islamic terrorism, America had no choice but to wage war until we figured out what and who we were killing:

At present, little is known of the circumstances which give birth to terrorists....Until this dearth of knowledge is overcome, the best way to handcuff terrorism is by killing, capturing and punishing terrorists period, with no commas, semicolons or question marks.

Luckily, Fein discovered a root cause of Islamic terrorism: "hate speech." Fein's solution: censorship and prison.

The United States should criminalize a root cause of terrorism: hate speech teaching that indiscriminate murders are morally justified to further a crazed religious, racial, ethnic or political cause. Europe has been more perspicacious than the United States on that score. The splenetic epithets heard in many madrassas or mosques or taught in many Islamic textbooks are exemplary of the evil.

In the first few years of Bush's war in Iraq, nothing could sway Bruce Fein from his unyielding support — not atrocities, not torture, not anything but certain failure. But that came later. So for example, when the Abu Ghraib torture scandal broke in 2004, Fein found a silver lining in that torture cloud:

The genuine news is not that U.S. military abuses of detainees in Iraq were so many but that they were so few and remedial responses were so prompt....Shouldn't the nation's fixation on Abu Ghraib be shifted to pulverizing the enemy in Iraq to ensure brave U.S. soldiers did not die there in vain?

And on and on. Fein is such a grotesque caricature of the American authoritarian type that at times he reads like bad hippie satire. Other times, it's hard to know which Bruce Fein we're dealing with. It's not only that today's libertarian Bruce Fein contradicts the Bruce Fein of just a few years ago — it's that Bruce Fein has a record of directly contradicting Bruce Fein on a month-to-month basis.

For example, after Saddam was captured, Bruce Fein righteously called for putting the ousted Iraqi dictator on trial as a way of showing what America and the West stood for — rule of law, transparency, democracy, and justice. In a May 2004 op-ed headlined, "Immediate Trials for Saddam and his Henchmen" Fein wrote,

The rule of law symbolized by the United States and the rule of terror symbolized by Saddam Hussein occupy different moral universes.... The stark contrast between the rule of law and rule by terror explains why Iraqis greeted America's liberation of their country from Saddam's clutches with virtual universal glee and gratitude.

The trials would renew the appreciation of Iraqis for their liberation, and boost their wavering resolve to sacrifice and to fight against terrorists, Baathists, and Khomeini-like Grand Ayatollahs for democracy and the rule of law.

Just two months later, an indignant Bruce Fein attacked Bruce Fein in an op-ed headlined, "Is This Trial Necessary?":

Saddam Hussein should be summarily executed. Summary execution might occasion qualms because of the customary presumption of innocence. But they would be fleeting.

There are countless examples of Bruce Fein outraged by Bruce Fein and taking on Bruce Fein, too many to list, as we're already veering into Fein Overkill. The point is to try to make sense of Bruce Fein's attacks on his fellow Ron Paul libertarians and fellow Snowden Family confidantes, Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald. Clearly, Fein is a strange creature — in a grand government surveillance conspiracy story that gets weirder and weirder the closer you get to the center of it all.

One explanation for Fein's total lack of scruples is his line of work: Bruce Fein is a lobbyist, has been a GOP lobbyist at least since the late 1980s after leaving the Reagan Administration. He peddles sleaze for a living. Fein has vigorously represented the "civil rights" of tobacco companies like Philip Morris and the lobby front group, the Tobacco Institute. Leaked tobacco industry documents show that Bruce Fein lobbied on behalf of Philip Morris before the US Senate and that he published scores of op-eds defending Big Tobacco from the Clinton Administration — calling for abolishing the FTC after it ruled to restrict advertising campaigns marketing cigarettes to children; and Fein compared the Clinton Administration's crackdown on tobacco to Hitler's Final Solution: "What's next, a Scarlet 'S' in lieu of the Star of David to identify [smokers]?" Fein ominously warned. Big Tobacco loved Fein so much that they listed him as a "candidate for the Philip Morris speakers program."

More recently, Fein has been penning Armenian Genocide-denier propaganda on behalf of the Turkish Coalition of America, where Fein has been listed as a "resident scholar." Among Fein's scholarly work: "Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths"; "Tawdry Genocide Tale"; "Armenian Crime Amnesia?" and so on. It's Fein's relentless commitment to taking money in exchange for genocide denial that led civil liberties attorney Mark Geragos, in his most recent book "Mistrial," to write:

Fein is one of the most repulsive human beings I have ever had the mispleasure of meeting. Whenever the Turkish government wants to deny the Genocide, it sticks Fein out in front and lets him spew a bunch of denialist trash about how the Genocide was nothing more than a civil war provoked by the Armenians.

...Fein got up, and in front of a courtroom that included several Genocide survivors, he denied its existence. It was a hateful and mean-spirited speech, made even worse by the fact that the audience was filled with people who had never met their grandparents or aunts and uncles because of the Genocide Fein was now denying. There have been few instances in which I have been filled with such rage, and I came very close that day to doing something that would have lost me my bar card forever....You could hear sobbing from all across the room, but in a testament to the dignity of the Armenian people, Fein was allowed to spread this trash without interruption.

That's one explanation for Fein's weird attack. The other is, well, weirder than that, beyond the usual weirdness that is Movement Libertarianism and Washington DC lobbying. This is about Bruce Fein's murky relationship with the world of US government intelligence agencies.

Fein runs a Washington DC lobbying outfit called The Lichfield Group. His lobby group's website is currently "under construction," but before it was deleted, Fein used to boast about his excellent connections to the same government agencies that he, as a Ron Paul libertarian, opposes. A scrubbed "Expertise" page on the Lichfield Group's website boasted:

The Lichfield Group features unrivalled government, media, and business experience. Exemplary is the Group's high level connections with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Central Intelligence Agency, on the one hand, to The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and nationwide broadcast or cable networks on the other.

The Group's unsurpassed combination of legal, business, media, political, and government savvy enables it to handle crisis management, tactical, or strategic positioning with unexcelled deftness. Whether a client is a giant corporation handcuffed by ill-conceived United States government policies or a foreign government anxious to influence the decisions of Congress, the President, agencies, the judiciary, or State governments, The Lichfield Group is armed with the skills and contacts indispensable for success.

On the "Practices" page, under "Government Consulting," Fein's company webpage expanded on his ties to government intelligence:

Relations with the United States Government: Department of Justice, Department of State, National Security Council, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, United States Trade Representative, House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence, Foreign Relations, and Armed Services, Members of Congress and key staff personnel.

It's hard to know what's bullshit, bluster or truth in the world of DC lobbying and spooks, but Fein backs it up by boasting in his Lichfield Group bio that he was executive editor for a murky private intelligence publication staffed by ex-CIA and ex-MI5 spooks called "The World Intelligence Review."

An example of Fein's work for the World Intelligence Review: a letter to the editor of the New York Times in 1995 defending the CIA from revelations about the Agency's work with torturers, headlined, "Why Hold C.I.A. To Higher Standard?"

It seems that at least one major purpose of the "World Intelligence Review" was to defend the CIA's public image — letters to the editor, reviews of books and films....Today, a website purporting to be the same "World Intelligence Review" — founded in 1978 and headquartered in Washington DC — mostly serves as an outlet for a paranoid British spook named Nigel West, whom BBC documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis recently described as one of the weirdest of the degenerates who dominate the British spy world:

weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us.

According to Curtis' piece for the BBC, Nigel West has spooked and scared the public over the years with tales of Soviet moles and traitors inside the MI5, or tales of Iraqi students in Britain acting as Saddam's sleeper cell terrorists on the eve of the 1991 Gulf War — all accusations that turned out to be nothing but paranoid fantasy. In fact, despite all the hysteria whipped up by people like Nigel West, MI5 never caught a single Soviet mole in the British spy services.

Today, Nigel West is listed as the European Editor of the same weirdo spy publication where Bruce Fein worked as executive editor in the 1990s. And Fein boasts of his ties to that same world: CIA, Homeland Security, National Security Council...outfits which have become less and less effective over time as their bureaucracies bloated, and their personnel regressed into a parallel universe of paranoid fantasy.

In June, after Lon Snowden spoke out against his son's flight to Hong Kong, Bruce Fein somehow managed to attach himself to Lon Snowden. Ever since, you won't see or hear a word out of Lon Snowden that isn't closely monitored by Bruce Fein's presence. Fein appears to be dragging the father into a funhouse world that makes less and less sense — the same Lon Snowden who told his son not to defect now finds himself groveling to Vladimir Putin, praising His mercy and humanity, all to creepy Bruce Fein's hovering-vulture approval.

Curtis describes the symbiotic relationship between spooks and journalists as their fortunes have dwindled over the years:

together the journalists and spies concocted a strange, dark world of treachery and deceit which bore very little relationship to what was really going on. And still doesn't.

Which is a long-winded way of saying: Meet the libertarians, whose entire philosophy is based on the paranoid belief of government conspiracies, a narrative thriller in which individualist heroes wage a Terminator-like battle against government jackboots.

Suddenly it doesn't seem so unlikely that the players on all sides of this epic spy scandal would share the same libertarian worldview, and the same cultish devotion to Ron and Rand Paul. Obviously Bruce Fein would turn on Glenn Greenwald. Obviously Julian Assange would undermine his own Australian political party and form an alliance with the anti-immigrant ex-neo-Nazis. Obviously Vladimir Putin would represent the heroic defense of the "powerless" victims against the "powerful."

And obviously Putin kept these creeps at arms-length, because even to Putin, this is all a little too fucking weird. (Imagine how Putin and the Russian spy agencies reacted to the news that Bradley Manning, Snowden's hero, was given a lighter- than-expected sentence, followed immediately by the "Chelsea Manning" statement. One clue into how Putin and Sechin and Kucherena and the rest of the siloviki might react is the story Adam Curtis tells about the Soviet Embassy in London's reaction to a massive MI5 leak from a disillusioned British MI5 lone-wolf communist sympathizer named Michael Bettaney. In the early 1980s, Bettaney collected reams of top-secret MI5 documents in his apartment, then dropped them off in the mailbox of a Russian embassy official who was so baffled, that he could only assume the Brits were setting him up and not doing a very good job of it. He immediately handed the documents over to MI5 before showing them to the KGB, leading to Bettaney's arrest.)

Ron and Rand Paul. Libertarianism. The Confederacy. Revisionist history. Paranoia and alarmist terror over Big Government drones watching your every move, reading your every word....The names and themes repeat themselves over and over, and at some point, if a journalist retains the proper skepticism, you have to wonder where the real story about government surveillance ends, and where the paranoid libertarian fantasies about drones hovering outside their bedroom windows begin, reality and fantasy each bleeding into the other... As our faith in the old 20th century liberal constructs have collapsed without anything to replace it, it's looking more and more like we've been sucked into a far weirder construct, someone else's paranoid reality, like in those early PKD novels — with Ron Paul as our Palmer Eldritch, Rand Paul our Eye In The Sky.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-27   21:38:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Gatlin (#1)

Ron and Rand Paul.

Ron Paul, living rent-free inside your head since 1976. He even won a Senate seat via his super-sperm.

Ron Paul! Boo-yah!

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-27   22:38:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative (#2)

Libertarians are liars who know their "philosophy" is a joke and does nothing but provide a smokescreen as a justification for their selfish acts. They actively enjoy screwing over others but know that in order for everyone not to band against them, they need cover. Hence they masquerade as being a political movement while they are nothing more than sadists sociopaths and hoarders who never got the concept of sharing or playing fair in nursery school. If we could lock all libertarians up in mental institutions, this world would be a better, happier, and more equitable place.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28   9:37:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Gatlin (#5)

If we could lock all libertarians up in mental institutions, this world would be a better, happier, and more equitable place.

I can tell you get all weepy at the thought that you can't just lock libertarians up in Soviet-style "mental hospitals" or gulags. The very fact you would write this says far far more about you than it does about any libertarian.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-28   9:43:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)

The very fact you would write this says far far more about you than it does about any libertarian.

The fact that I wrote that means that libertarians have an almost dystopian ideal of what they want the U.S. to be.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28   9:51:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Gatlin (#7) (Edited)

----- libertarians have an almost dystopian ideal of what they want the U.S. to be.

Not true. Here is an essay about libertarian ideals, authored by Henry Walleski...

---- "Both the Declaration of Independence (1776), and U.S. Constitution (1787) that created its political reality, are fundamentally libertarian.

The Declaration set forth self-evident truths of self-ownership and inalienable rights – to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness – and others not named specifically. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (1791), are quintessentially and by definition libertarian in defining and protecting many of the rights of individuals proclaimed in the Declaration, most especially by encroachment from government.

But these express limits and boundaries are only the superficial – albeit highly relevant -similarities to modern American libertarianism. Little understood by most people – certainly not taught in public schools – and certainly not acknowledged by today’s ruling political class – the structure of constitution itself represents an even more powerful safeguard of individual freedom from political coercion.

The entire federalist structure the U.S. federal government, as a republic, in relation to the existing original thirteen separate and sovereign states, was founded specifically and purposefully to prevent the concentration of power as an explicit protect of individual freedom – the latter which is of course among the fundamental tenets of both American libertarianism and its predecessor classical liberalism or its other moniker radical liberalism.

The entire Constitutional structure of the federal government is to retain all powers for the States and to individuals, that are not specifically granted to the federal government, and then to strictly limit the scope and powers of the federal government. Jonathan Turley, a well-known liberal and ardent supporter of President Obama’s policies, as well as a highly distinguished professor of constitutional law at George Washington University Law School, vociferously argues that the separation of powers structure of the federal government was designed specifically to prevent the concentration of power and the tyranny that might result from it. According to Turley, avoidance of such concentration of power was deliberately conceived and insisted upon by the founders specifically as one of the most important protections of individual liberty.

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution Harvard University historian Bernard Bailyn studied the many political pamphlets published between 1750 and 1776 and identified patterns of language, argument, and references to figures such as the radical Whigs and Cato the Younger, who were proponents of radical liberalism[now libertarianism]. Mr. Bailyn explains:

“[The]major themes of eighteenth-century radical libertarianism [were] brought to realization here[in the American Revolution]. The first is the belief that power is evil, a necessity perhaps but an evil necessity; that it is infinitely corrupting; and that it must be controlled, limited, restricted in every way compatible with a minimum of civil order. Written constitutions; the separation of powers; bills of rights; limitations on executives, on legislatures, and courts; restrictions on the right to coerce and wage war—all express the profound distrust of power that lies at the ideological heart of the American Revolution and that has remained with us as a permanent legacy ever after.”

In light of this incontrovertible evidence, to argue that the constitution is a socialist document is absurd.

To argue that is a libertarian (American version) document is self-evident. "

tpaine  posted on  2018-06-28   11:18:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: tpaine (#10) (Edited)

Henry Wallesk:
“Both the Declaration of Independence (1776), and U.S. Constitution (1787) that created its political reality, are fundamentally libertarian.”
No, a closer look at the Founders’ thought about government shows their political philosophy that culminated in the Constitution was anything but libertarian. The American Founders believed that government exists to protect rights, just as libertarians do. But their understanding of rights was radically different from the libertarian understanding. Libertarians like Wenzel believe that protecting rights means prohibiting coercion. The Founders believed that protecting rights meant seeking the moral and material well-being of society. The American Founding was conservative, not libertarian. Libertarians will have to look elsewhere to support their beliefs. The American Founders Were Not Libertarians.

These are not my words, these are the words of Jonathan Ashbach, a PhD student in politics at Hillsdale College. Jonathan has worked in the hospitality industry and as assistant editor for the Humboldt Economic Index. His work has also been published on Patheos and Christianity Today.

Jonathan Ashbach goes on to say that:

Libertarians are still trying to claim the American Founding as theirs. One occasionally hears the argument that the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are libertarian. One of the most recent instances of this claim resides in Nikolai Wenzel’s first-rate defense of libertarianism in “Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives?” (Stanford: 2017). Yet a closer look at the Founders’ thought about government makes clear that it was anything but libertarian.

Wenzel notes there are different types of libertarianism. He clarifies that “unless I specify otherwise, I will use the term libertarian to mean minarchy.” Minarchist libertarianism holds that government exists only to protect individuals’ rights. “A libertarian government is forbidden from doing almost everything,” Wenzel states. “In fact, a libertarian government is empowered to do only one thing: defend individual rights.”

Wenzel’s argument for a libertarian Founding rests largely on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Indeed, his claims do seem superficially persuasive.

The Constitution limits the federal government to the exercise of a few specific powers. Surely, this is a classic instance of libertarian philosophy limiting the sphere of government, is it not? As Wenzel argues, “By and large, the enumerated powers granted to the federal government under Article I, section 8, are in line with libertarian philosophy.” He recognizes that elements of the Constitution violate libertarian principles, but his overall evaluation is that “The U.S. Constitution was largely a libertarian document.”

The Declaration, argues Wenzel, is more explicitly libertarian. It declares that all possess natural rights and that governments are created to protect those rights. “There, then,” says Wenzel, “is the political philosophy of the Declaration: The purpose of government is to protect rights. Period.” He calls this “a minimalist philosophy with which any libertarian would agree.”

The Fatal Flaw: A Different Understanding of Rights So far, all of this sounds quite convincing, but there is a fatal flaw in Wenzel’s argument. Both libertarians and the American Founders describe the purpose of government as the protection of rights. But by “rights” they mean two very different things.

For Wenzel, respecting others’ rights simply means refraining from coercion. The state exists only to protect rights, and therefore, “the state itself may not engage in any coercion, except to prevent coercion.” He argues that participants in immoral trades, such as “The drug pusher, the prostitute, and the pornographer,” do not violate others’ rights “as long as they do not coercively impose their wares on others.” Nor does the polygamist.

Wenzel’s coauthor Nathan Schlueter points out the problem with this position: “Libertarianism essentially denies that…moral harms exist and maintains that the only real injustice is coercion. Accordingly, it promotes a legal regime in which some individuals are legally entitled to harm others in noncoercive ways.” Wenzel assumes that only coercion violates rights. The Founders profoundly disagreed.

A Second Look at the Founding Creed Think again about the alleged libertarianism of the Founding documents. Wenzel makes a common mistake in assuming that the limitation of the national government to a few specific enumerated powers reflects libertarian belief. But this limitation has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has everything to do with federalism.

The federal government was only created to fulfill certain limited, particular purposes. It was not created to do everything the Founders believed government should do. Most of those functions—and, on the whole, those less compatible with libertarianism—were entrusted to the states. The fact that the enumerated powers of the federal government are largely consistent with libertarianism does not mean the Founders were libertarians. It means nothing at all, in fact. It is a conclusion based on only half the data.

Actually, the enumeration of federal powers is more an accident of history than anything else. James Madison’s original proposal was that the national government simply possess blanket authority “to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent.” The Constitutional Convention ultimately chose to list its powers, believing this was less liable to abuse, but this decision was by no means dictated by the Founders’ beliefs about government.

As for the Declaration, it does not say that government exists only to protect individuals’ life, liberty, and property. A libertarian right to be free of coercion is not intended here. Instead, the Declaration states that life and liberty are included “among” the natural rights of mankind, as is something else referred to as “the pursuit of happiness.” The right to happiness was not simply sweet-sounding rhetoric. It was the centerpiece of the Founders’ political theory.

Government for the Common Good

The Founders’ political theory was not libertarian, because they believed that the preeminent human right was happiness. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, for example, states: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness” (emphases added).

As the language makes clear, the rights of man could be expressed as a list of rights that includes life, liberty, and property. But the great right that encompassed all others was the right to pursue (or even obtain!) happiness. Assertions of this right to happiness appear in many Founding-Era writings, including other state constitutions.

The purpose of government, in turn, was to help people achieve happiness by promoting their good. Delegate to the Constitutional Convention James Wilson wrote one of the most thorough expositions of the Founding philosophy—his famous “Lectures on Law.” In them, he explains that the purpose of government is to promote the well-being of those subject to it: “Whatever promotes the greatest happiness of the whole,” that is what government should do.

Once again, this sort of talk is commonplace. Twelve of the 13 original states adopted a constitution in the Founding Era. Every one of these states described the purpose of government as promoting the well-being of citizens. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 is typical, holding that “all government…is…instituted for the general good.”

What Conservative Governance Means

Because the general good includes the moral good, this meant discouraging immoral behavior. Wenzel speaks of voluntary drug and sexual matters as beyond the purview of a libertarian government. But such laws were universal in early America.

Thus Mark Kann writes in “Taming Passion for the Public Good” that “the state’s right to regulate sexual practices…was undisputed” in early America, and Wilson notes bigamy, prostitution, and indecency as offenses subject to punishment on Founding political theory. Similarly, in “Federalist” 12, Alexander Hamilton cites the beneficial impact on morals as a justification for federal taxation of alcoholic imports.

The Founders used government to discourage other noncoercive activities, as well. In 1778, Congress recommended to the states “suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse-racing, gambling, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners.” In his book, “The People’s Welfare,” William Novak details the extensive regulation of everything from lotteries and usury to Sunday travel, coarse language, and poor relief that was the norm during the Founding Era.

The American Founders believed that government exists to protect rights, just as libertarians do. But their understanding of rights was radically different from the libertarian understanding. Libertarians like Wenzel believe that protecting rights means prohibiting coercion. The Founders believed that protecting rights meant seeking the moral and material well-being of society. The American Founding was conservative, not libertarian. Libertarians will have to look elsewhere to support their beliefs.

To argue that the Constitution is a libertarian (American version) document is self- evident.
Quite to the extreme contrary, claiming the Constitution is a libertarian document is nothing but perverse.

Applying libertarian viewpoints to the Founders Fathers when the majority of the Founding Fathers were Federalists and applying libertarian viewpoints to the nuances of the real world is childishly unrealistic. It takes a certain type of people to still cling to that simplistic thinking and call themselves libertarians.

There's really nothing more obnoxiously amusing than a libertarian stoner with his endless, useless, and rambling monologue of an argument trying vainly to support libertarianism.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28   19:06:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Gatlin (#22)

Gatlin wrote: ------- There's really nothing more obnoxiously amusing than a libertarian stoner with his endless, useless, and rambling monologue of an argument trying vainly to support libertarianism. ----- I will go ahead and say that libertarians are petulant children who have a deep rooted hatred of authority figures as well as anyone who does not agree and support their warped philosophy

Denying the very substantial libertarian elements in American independence from Britain and our subsequent history is nothing short of perverse. ---- TC wrote

TC and I agree, Gatlin is among the most perverse and petulant personas on LF.. Now he's trying to outdo nolu sham in lengthy Spam, what a mam.

tpaine  posted on  2018-07-02   21:05:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Tooconservative, tpaine (#26)

TC and I agree, Gatlin is among the most perverse and petulant personas on LF.
TC, I have never seen anywhere you stated I am “among the most perverse and petulant personas on LF.”

Is it true that you have agreed with tpaine on this?

I find it extremely hard to believe that you are allowing tpaine to speak for you....are you?

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-02   21:49:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Gatlin (#27)

I didn't say that. I don't generally gossip about other posters in forum mail.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-02   22:02:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 28.

#29. To: Tooconservative (#28)

Tpaine: TC and I agree, Gatlin is among the most perverse and petulant personas on LF.

Tooconservative: I didn't say that. I don't generally gossip about other posters in forum mail.

I fully expected this answer from you.

I only wanted your denial so that everyone else could see you didn’t say that.

Thank you for responding.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-02 22:24:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com