Eric Peters

Clovers are ok with the American Police State because to them, it’s not a police state. They see no imposition – much less tyranny. They see “democracy,” lawful order. The flag – and (to them) freedom. The mindset is nicely articulated by the well-worn Clover cliche: “If you just obey the law you won’t have any problems.”

It’s circular reasoning, obviously – with the circles becoming ever tighter as they spiral down toward the drain into outright and abject slavery. Which even then, Clover will not see as slavery. He will still be free to act, he thinks – provided of course that he acts within the boundaries laid down for him. In the same way a slave was free to pick cotton; or the medieval serf free to farm his small plot… so long as he gave his Lord the specified portion of his crop.

Clover does not grasp that each time he submits, he has surrendered a piece of his life. And much worse, the lives of others, too.

Eventually, there will be nothing left to surrender.

But this ugly inevitability does not trouble Clover. He agrees to allow others to direct and control his life, to make his decisions for him. And because he has accepted this “direction,” so also must others. If they do not, if they object in any way, then they deserve what comes to them. It will please Clover to see them punished.

More »

Glenn Greenwald

Westerners love to decry censorship aimed at them by Muslims while ignoring the extreme censorship they impose on them

Nothing tests one's intellectual honesty and ability to apply principles consistently more than free speech controversies. It is exceedingly easy to invoke free speech values in defense of political views you like. It is exceedingly difficult to invoke them in defense of views you loathe. But the true test for determining the authenticity of one's belief in free speech is whether one does the latter, not the former.

The anti-US protests sweeping the Muslim world have presented a perfect challenge to test the free speech convictions of both the American right and the Democratic party version of the left. Neither is faring particularly well.

Let's begin with the Democrats. On Thursday, the Obama White House called executives at Google, the parent company of YouTube, and "requested" that the company review whether the disgusting anti-Muslim film that has sparked such unrest should be removed on the ground that it violates YouTube's terms of service.

In response, free speech groups such as the ACLU and EFF expressed serious concerns about the White House's actions. While acknowledging that there was nothing legally compulsory about the White House's request (indeed, Google announced the next day they would leave the video up), the civil liberties groups nonetheless noted – correctly – that "it does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship", and that "by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don't want them to take it down; when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect".

Right-wing commenters loudly decried the White House's actions on free speech grounds. Some of their rhetoric was overblown (the sentiment behind the request was understandable, and they did nothing to compel its removal). But, for reasons made clear by the ACLU and EFF, these conservative objections were largely correct.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Sparring between the two leaders has reached a point of no return

Much has been made about an Obama/Netanyahu rift. At times, it's hard separating rhetoric from reality. Nonetheless, neither leader, it appears, particularly likes the other. Disagreement between them is palpable. It's over Iranian red lines and deadlines.

Former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said he doesn't believe in "red line policies." He responded to Netanyahu saying:

"The world tells Israel 'wait, there's still time.' And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."

"Now if Iran knows that there is no red line. If Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it's doing. It's continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs."

A previous article called Netanyahu the mouth that roars for good reason. He repeatedly puts both feet in his mouth and risks swallowing them.

He's arrogant, offensive, duplicitous, thuggish, and dangerous. He's an embarrassment to legitimate governance. It's hard imagining why any Israelis put up with him. If ever a bum deserved to be thrown out it's Netanyahu.

More »