The Tools of Political Repression were Built by Both Democrats and Republicans.

The Tools of Political Repression were Built by Both Democrats and Republicans.

Photo Credit: Neo.org

One of the biggest concerns people have about President Trump is his bombastic personally and ego having access to the nuclear codes. Of course, this is a somewhat " over the top" example but many Americans are rightfully concerned about Trump's authoritarian tendencies and how he might overstep his authority.

One of these powers is embodied in "National Defense Authorization Act," or NDAA.

Under provisions in the NDAA, the American Government can now detain anyone they claim is an enemy combatant, terrorist, spy, and what's worse they can detain them indefinitely without the right to counsel or trial. It’s important to note here that the NDAA was enacted into law by the Obama Administration in the midnight hour in 2011. The NDAA essentially permits the government to carry out acts of unimaginable civil rights violations against not only American citizens but human beings.

Basically, the NDAA says, if you support radical Islamic ideology you could be faced with the reality of being labeled an enemy of the state and face unlimited detention without " your day in court." Your rights to due process are stripped. In fact, you could end up in Guantanamo Bay detention camp!

The NDAA has been challenged by activist Chris Hedges and others, however, the Courts have upheld the NDAA as constitutional. [See Source]

There have been attempts by Hedges and others who have approached the Democratic Party leadership about excluding American citizens from the NDAA and those request fell on deaf ears.

The NDAA was written in a moment of civil unrest throughout the world. It essentially overturned the "Posse Comitatus Act."  What we have now is the military being used to quell civil disobedience. A good example is the Standing Rock protest.

I Stand With Standing Rock Shirt $20

What Is the Real Reason for The National Defense Authorization Act?

For starters, "Climate Change," economic dislocation, " Black Lives Matter" and other forms of civil disobedience are a threat to the ruling elites. These factions know and see that the American populist are becoming uneasy and more aware of the tools of political repression and that unrest is intimate.

So, the ruling elites want to use the military as a tool for breaking up these ever-growing national protests on a myriad of issues. To accomplish this goal, both the Democratic Global oligarchs and the Republican Nationalist oligarchs needed a law that would allow them to do so. Hence, the NDAA.

President Obama said when he signed it [NDAA] into law he would not use it. What our research here in the House of Public Discourse has led us to is the power of political repression has been thrust upon " We the People" by judicial mandates. These mandates have overturned many of our rights to privacy, civil rights, and to our liberty and freedom.

The unlimited amounts of money that can now be used to influence eager and ready politicians with their hands out through another judicial mandate " Citizens United" has created a whole new ballgame in American democracy.

You add to this the increasing actives of the surveillance state all these powers are now in the hands of people like Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, and others.

With our society going the way of the 1920's " Robber Barons" era and wealth inequality growing daily with our jobs continuing to flow overseas and our workforce being replaced by new technology and now our rights to protest being made illegal you can best believe the Donald Trumps of the world will not hesitate to use the military against angry civilians. We have already seen it happen.

These tools of political repression were built by both the Democratic and Republican Parties. We all should be putting on our shields and armor gear to fight against these grotesques violation of our civil liberties. "Civil Disobedience" is American as baseball and apple pie. It is the only mechanism we have left to combat these powers that be. Our Democracy is not dead yet.

America has not been a fully functional democracy for some time. Most of the traditional institutions in our country can longer be considered democratic. All of them have been taken over by corporate influence peddling Mass Media, Academia, political establishments, and the lobbyist. 

What we fear the most here in the House of Public Discourse is under a Trump regime we could see these tools of political repression become even more violent. Under this authoritarian and his authoritarian follower's anyone who dissents or doesn't fall in line will be labeled a traitor, terrorist, and they will be certainly demonized. 

Right now, not next week or next year it's time for people to step out of the grip of the mainstream media narrative and the tool of political repression. It's time to break out the pitchforks folks.

Don't Push Me, I,m Close to the Edge, I,m Trying not to Lose My Head! Reminds me of a song.

Written By: Johnny Hill

All America Has To Fear Is Fear Itself!

America Has Become A Culture Of Fear!

Franklin D. Roosevelt

On March 4,  1933, a newly elected president Franklin Roosevelt delivered a speech on the steps of our nation's capital that instructed American's not to live in fear. That by doing so fear wins. 

The Speech

The Culture Of Fear

If Franklin D. Roosevelt was right all we have to fear is fear itself. Then there should be nothing left for American's to fear. What happens frequently is when problems go away undoubtedly other problems arise to take their place. When the Cold War went away instead of people and their politicians breathing a sigh of relief other problems in the form of terrorism rose up. Certain segments of America's population seem to always be in a consent state of fear. 

Is America a safe place to live today? To look at our daily news feeds and all the mass shootings, murders suicides, and police shootings many American's would probably answer the given question with an emphatic no!  Fear in America is promoted by so many different factions. There is a culture of fear in America and the trend is getting worst. Why? Because fear is profitable and many organizations and the politicians they own have a real stake in promoting fear in this country. 

Politicians like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump win elections by creating the politics of fear and anger. Corporate owned media outlets like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC to name a few profit in spreading the politics of fear and anger. These for-profit media echo chambers may be the worst of the worst in spreading fear. Their motto and business model seems to be “if it bleeds it leads."

The culture of fear in the United States is unusual. In fact, the culture of fear in America is not only at an all-time high its extreme in its nature. This fear that abounds in America is quite remarkable. Of all the countries in the world, the United States is far and away the most privileged and secure. The way we have used the news to promote fear in America and the way politicians feed off it has become a horror movie in which "We the People" can't go home or get away from. Fear mongering has become a 24/7 business in today's America. The mainstream media delivers around the clock fear. There are fears that cater to every demographic. These 24-hour news networks are always filling their news lineups with the reasons we need to be afraid. 

One of the challenges we face living in modern day America is because of the mass media, not a day goes by we are not made aware of some tragic event happening somewhere. There is always something to get depressed, upset, or angry over. There is an army of invaders coming across our borders to steal our jobs and change our culture. Apparently in the Republican Party this fear mongering works. Hence, Donald Trump being the parties current front runner. Every day on any assorted news media outlet we are inundated with news-feeds from all over the world. These mass media pundits are standing by to inform us of all the things we must be afraid of and fear. We are always made aware that there are bad people out there and they mean you harm so go buy a gun to protect yourself. 

In America today the truth is of little consequence. People are indoctrinated on a set of beliefs that no matter if they are true or false changing their belief patterns based on the real truth would derail their lives. People support their faulty indoctrination's because they are a crutch to their entire being as a human being. Mom and Dad could never be wrong! In today's world, it is often times the truth that is phony and not the lie. People are manipulated by fear and propaganda. 

Millions of American's have fallen prey to this onslaught of fear to the point of becoming helpless sheep. And it’s the politics of fear and anger and their associated media echo chambers that are the sheepdogs to keep them in line. Humans attempt to keep other humans in line and they do it by ridiculing and condemning anyone who commits the crime of being different.

There is a conscious and intelligent manipulation of people's habits enhanced by political mechanisms like the “Patriot Act" that allow corporations and other organizations privy to this information to be the real invisible ruling powers in the world today. We are governed by this information, our minds are molded, and largely by people we have never heard or seen. Propaganda has played a major role in how our present day Democratic society is organized.

People in the business of profiting from the politics of fear and anger have become masterful at finding ways to dip into people's greatest desires and fears. They use this for their own purposes and benefit. It is ludicrous to think these factions have a reliable judgment on what's best for the individual or our nation as a whole. Large segments of the American population vote against their own interest based on them being manipulated by the politics and propaganda being shoved down their throats on a daily basis. 

In closing, there becomes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so unbearable that it makes one sick to the heart that we must rise up as a group and say we are mad as hell and we will not take it anymore. We must as a collective and concerned society say enough is enough. We all must become an activist in our own special and unique ways. We must send a message to these invisible forces behind the machine that we will do whatever it takes to destroy your machines of manipulation and conquest. We must all become that man standing in front of the tanks in Tienanmen Square. Let's be afraid no more. Because just like FDR said in 1933 “All We Have To Fear Is Fear itself."

1989 Raw Video: Man vs. Chinese tank Tienanmen Square

The Politics Of Fear And Anger Have Gone Viral In America

The Politics Of Fear And Anger

The politics of fear and anger have gone viral in America. You can't turn on your television or read your newspaper today without seeing or reading something about fear. We live in a culture of fear and anger. There are SWAT teams kicking down people's doors for simple possession of Marijuana and individuals picking up assault weapons and shooting up the public square in the name of GOD and country. 

Our politicians and news media outlets are packaging fear who tell us to fear terrorist, neighbors, immigrants, refugees, and liberal social institutions established to help poor and elderly people.  There is a consistent cry by politicians proclaiming that war is the only solution. Since 9/11 we have had a government agency[NSA] monitoring our phone calls and collecting other data about our daily lives. The Dept of Defense has been selling billions of dollars of military equipment to local police forces which have turned our police forces into a military force[See Source]

Our police forces have been getting away with murder shooting and killing unarmed civilians while their departments have been receiving tanks, armor vehicles, flat jackets, helmets, and other military equipment as well. 

As we saw in the 'Occupy Movement" peaceful protesters were shot with rubber bullets and sprayed with mace. Enter the war on terror. The war on terror is the logical entry point for constructing governmental policy based on fear. How will they strike us next? The politics of fear has resulted in " We the People" losing our rights of privacy and has culminated in a mentality of fear cultivated by the political elite and the " Military Industrial Complex."

Criminal Justice Plays A Role In The Politics Of Fear And Anger

There is no denying the role judges play in our society. Having fair-minded unbiased judges is critical to a free Democratic society. Judges are tasked with protecting our most cherished right to freedom and basic values. To the point, Judges are the guardians of liberty in America. Judges are the custodians of all the things that matter in terms of evaluating civil liberties. The decisions Judges make matter most of all to people with less power or none at all. The poor. The disfavored and people who have been marginalized. Our Judges must take this role seriously. 

However, this writer fears that judicial independence in our nation is at risk. There are efforts to undermine the integrity and functions of our Judges. There is much to lose if this independence is compromised. The decisions and precedents that Judges make effect our lives in a myriad of ways. 

For example, it was judicial decisions that desegregated our schools and allowed equal voting rights to minorities. It took a political movement to persuade politicians to act on these egregious violations of our civil liberties. If the everyday person had not acted by forming groups which soon became a movement, these legislative changes would not have happened. 

In today's political climate of fear and anger, the progress of the "Civil Rights Movement" in the 1960's has come under attack by right-wing conservative politicians in the Republican Party. They wish to take us back in time when the white man was the only race entitled to these cherished civil liberties.[See Article]

The United States today is a very different place than it was 40 years ago. In the early 1970's when you think about criminal justice in America, there were 350, 000 people in our jails and prisons. Today there are over two million people locked up in our correctional system. There are another six million people on probation and parole. Mass incarceration has affected the lives of millions of Americans. What most people don't appreciate is the collateral effects this has on people’s lives.

Charlie Chaplin Hoodie $40.00 (Free Shipping)

We Must End The Politics Of Fear And Anger

There is a board political reality in America today that suggest we are a nation of fear and anger. Over the last several decades, there have been politicians and their “Christian Right" allies preaching to us to be afraid and be angry. When people are afraid and angry they reconcile themselves to violating the basic human rights of the people whom they are afraid.

If a group or race of people is perceived to be an out-group it's okay to ignore them and their rights to basic human dignity. There are many historical examples of horrific abuse genocide, holocaust, and slavery. 

All of these institutions were created and sustained by a political vision fueled by fear and kept in place by anger. When you listen to politicians on the right today there is no real search for the truth there is only the dynamic of fear and anger. What has resulted is mass shootings on a monthly basis and innocent causalities all based on fear expressed by anger when an individual acts out. 

In 1996 the Clinton administration passed a “Welfare Reform Act" that allowed states to bar citizens from public benefits food stamps, housing, and medical services if they have a prior drug conviction. In this writer's lifetime, the politics of fear and anger has created a cast system in the United States. And, anyone with a criminal record is considered an “Untouchable."

There are scores of American citizens living beneath the public benefits system many who are homeless. There are single moms with children who cannot get public assistance because they have prior drug and other criminal offenses. It's the poor who have suffered the most from the politics of fear and anger. We have a criminal justice system that has become wealth dependent. No matter how innocent you are no matter how strong your alibi the mere fact you did nothing wrong doesn't shield you from arrest, prosecution, conviction, and long-term incarceration. 

Our present criminal justice system treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent. 

Wealth, not culpability shapes the outcomes of many judicial decisions today. The poor are being destroyed by this reality. The mentality ill have been locked up in our correctional system. There is very little help for the mentality ill in poor and minority communities. We just throw them in jail or prison. We do not help children who are dealing with these developmental issues we jerk them out of schools because they can't deal with cultural norms we call them criminal we put them in juvenile detention centers they are stigmatized and put on a pipeline leading to criminal behavior. 

There is a sense of hopelessness in our minority communities today. Most African America males feel their lives will be lost due to drug violence or racist cops. Many African males believe they will be incarcerated by the age of 21.  It's high time we engage these children and communities and fight against these feelings of hopelessness. It is the duty of any conscious citizen to help empower our brothers and sisters. 

One of the biggest challenges we face as a society is that most of us have doubts as to what we as individuals can do to affect positive change in our communities. What this writer has learned from my childhood and adult years is you can't buy what you can't sale. If you as a single person have no hope you cannot give hope to others. 

We must end the war on drugs. Stop the modern day equivalent to Jim Crow which has led to mass incarceration of minorities and the poor. America is the only country in the world where a 13-year-old can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. There is no question that large segments of our society in America have been held hostage to the politics of fear and anger. Now is the time to stop this scourge on our citizens and end the politics of fear and anger once and for all. 

Study: Conservatives have larger 'fear center' in brain

History Does Repeat Itself In Politics

Is there not this splendor that is Washington D.C. Just the bureaucratic vastness all " Inside the Beltway." Our nation's capital is a world within itself. Since the end of the second World War, it has grown to the point of being unrecognizable to the everyday citizen. The mere expense of government flabbergast people, and the number of people or functionaries that serve our state is inconceivable to most Americans. 

There are thousands of lawyers and lobbyist that call our nation capital their home and workplace. Congress has staff members that reach well over 35k. It's this sense of  vastness that have perpetuated  many Americans to have a negative view of Washington D.C. The various servants of government flatter, one another, blame one another, strike poses together, issue bills together, make announcements together, the list is endless.[See Source]

What has transpired from all this bureaucracy and vastness is an American government of Fascism, Oligarchy, and Plutocracy.

It is the view of the House of Public Discourse that we see a battle fully joined right now. One of this writer's main mantra's is that history does repeat itself in politics. Looking at our present political environment  we see echos of the 1800's and 1920's. The Koch Brothers have raised millions of dollars just two people with the help of about 300 other ultra rich Americans to essentially hijack our American democracy. Our research has found that what we see today was very similar to what was happening in America in 1799. During the John Adams presidency, we saw democracy giving way to the elites of that period and, of course, there was the " Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. 

A series of laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition were passed by the Federalist Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President Adams. These laws included new powers to deport foreigners as well as making it harder for new immigrants to vote.[See Source] 


It's important to note that this elitist Act was duly overturned by the Thomas Jefferson Administration in the early 1800's. Thomas Jefferson and his political ideology were paramount in reversing the slide to Oligarchy back then, and boy do we need another Thomas Jefferson to reappear now in our governance. President Obama has done some but with not much success and his recent support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal has squashed whatever hopes of a true change candidate he proclaimed while running for office. 

We had another slide towards Oligarchy in the 1920's. Under the Harding Administration. Harding ran on the platform more business in government less government in business deregulate and privatize. Sound familiar? In 1920, they deregulated the banks. The Stock Market exploded and crashed promptly in 1929. Hence, the Great Depression. What is worth noting here is the Oligarch's had complete control of the economy and our government at the time just like right now in America. 

 History Does Repeat Itself In Politics Vice President Henry Wallace In 1945.

Today the Koch Brothers and their Oligarch buddies are the prime examples of spokespersons for monopoly and vested interest.To obtain this goal, Oligarchs must capture the political power that is and has been these factions primary objective throughout American history. In our world today this very same objective is being thrust upon us by the Oligarchs of today. History does repeat itself in politics, and by using the power of the State and the free markets in conjunction a few elitist can control the world today. And, what is the one thing that keeps them in check We The People?[Government] Government regulation is the one thing that can keep these Vulture Capitalists from destroying our democracy, our middle-class, and our air, river, and streams. By obtaining both the power of the markets and the state these factions can dictate to We The People whether we like it or not. In a phrase, they want us under their eternal subjection. 

After the 2014 mid-term election, Republicans gained more power in state legislatures than any other time in their parties history. This power goes back to the time of Lincoln. The GOP control 69 of 99 state chambers in the country. This control is more than any other time in American history. Our research here in the House of Public Discourse would submit to you because of the money influence that has been allowed free reign by legal proclamations like Citizen United, and  the all out attack on our civil rights to vote. You can track this behavior back to the Powell memo in 1971. 

Powell Memo Explained 

In 1980, David Koch ran for Vice-President on the Libertarian Party ticket and lost. Now, the Koch's and their billionaire buddies want just like  Oligarchs of past  to control everything. In fact, their money today has more power than any vice-president would ever have in a million years. So, what are these Oligarchs doing with this power today?  For starters, they have built think tanks for the promotion of  Plutocracy.

Plutocracy (from Greek πλοῦτος, ploutos, meaning "wealth", and κράτος, kratos, meaning "power, dominion, rule") or plutarchy, is a form of oligarchy and defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. The first known use of the term was in 1652. Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism or anarchism, plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion though the term itself is almost always used in a pejorative sense.[See Source]

These goals by the billionaire class is a very real battle facing We The People.[Ordinary People] The future of our democracy is on the line. The future of the Unite States is on the line. Are we going to allow a select few billionaires to lord it over us or are we going to fight to save our middle class that made our country the real shining light on the hill? That's the question we need to answer in the coming 2016 election? Are we going to allow our country to sink back to the times of the 1920's that led to the Great Depression or are we going to rise and take back our country from the Oligarchs? Cause there is one thing you can be sure of: " History Does Repeat Itself In Politics."

The American Experiment Is Under Crisis!

Is the American experiment under crisis? Today you can ask five people their interpretation of any given constitutional  question, and chances are you will get five different viewpoints. Our founding fathers gathered  themselves in a small room in Philadelphia to hash out what at the time was nothing more than a governmental experiment, to form a new type of government for a new country they would call the United States of America. Not only were there no assurances that it would work but history at the time told them it wouldn't.  In their day, nations were ruled by rulers, not rules.  Kings told everyone else what to do. A government run by the people themselves was an old idea;  however,  it had never worked. People fight with each other. It's human nature. People are messy,  they have their interests, and they disagree. Rulers knew it took armies to keep people under control. These men [Founding Fathers] believed it took a constitution. They felt they could create institutions that would let conflict occur, then deal with it and that people would accept the outcome. That is, in fact, what they believed. In the Spring of 1787 it was time to deliver. There was much indecision as to whether they could. The Constitution was written in a time of crisis. Our founding fathers at that moment knew if they failed,  their country would fail. They responded by starting a nation in a small room with just a handful of ideas.[See Sources]

Many of the images and ideas we have of our founding fathers comes from 19th-Century historians. These historians advocated GOD himself handed down the Constitution. 

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father. Jefferson wrote the " Declaration of Independence." Jefferson called the men who wrote the Constitution demagogues. So what did this make Thomas Jefferson? Our founding fathers are the equivalent to " Greek Gods" in America. We The People have transformed these men into larger than life figures.  We have written untold books about them and have cast them in bronze. We have made educational films about them with many of those films' facts being entirely unsubstantiated. The average school child in America has been taught to speak of these men in a hushed whisper. These men were going to be whisked straight to heaven. These were real men that faced real challenges, but they were not gods. Our research here at the House of Public Discourse has found several who did not believe in God period. These men knew they were not gods. In fact, they were in fear of any man who would march himself a god. King George II ring a bell? Our research found these men would be disgusted at the reverence "We The People,"  pay these men. Some of them would for sure. We should admire these men by all means but to give them GOD status is over-the-top. We should find solace in that these men were not " Supermen. " They were just ordinary men involved in an extraordinary ordeal of forming and shaping a new country, a new nation that the world had never experienced before:  the'' American Experiment."

For the record, Ben Franklin felt the Constitution would last about ten years. 

The Articles of Confederation were a disaster and  the primary reason for much of the conflict. So history tells us that the first Constitution of America was a failure. The Articles of Confederation did not bind the new states together into one nation. This document functioned as a " league of friendship." We must remember the populists of that time still had the memories of being ruled and lorded over. The population was wary of any identity that would somehow become too dominant. And as back then as is the order of the day today, people were Virginians, North Carolinian's, Pennsylvanians, and New Yorkers. Sectionalism  was rampant. Just like in these modern times these citizens clamored for states' rights. These states saw themselves as sovereign nations.  In practice, they kind of, sorta, made an agreement to work together with other states. These arrangements fell apart so quickly that it boggles the mind. One of the biggest problems was there was no power of taxation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States government was flat broke. The US could not afford to protect ships on the Atlantic from pirates. They could not protect citizens on the western borders either. Each state printed its money. For example, the state of New York was charging Connecticut and New Jersey an " arm and a leg" for everything coming into its port.  So, in turn, these states planned a military attack on New York. The real breaking point was Shay's Rebellion. 

WHAT WAS SHAY'S REBELLION?

In closing, Part 1 of this series of articles,  do you the reader see where we here at the House of Public Discourse are going? This writer believes that history, in fact, does repeat itself. Sectionalism is on the rise in America. The Articles of Confederation  were a complete failure falling prey to sectionalism. Is our great "American Experiment." the Constitution of the United States, destined to go the way of the Articles of Confederation? Today, there is much talk of secession. Sectionalism has risen its ugly face more and more by the day. We are seeing shades of the Shay's Rebellion rearing its head through hate groups, radicalized religious zealots, political corruption, and domestic terrorism just to name a few. " The American Experiment Is Under Crisis," and in part 2 of this series we will investigate the question, "Is Secession  Inevitable?"  Back in 1987, a woman in the presence of Ben Franklin asked him the question. " Mr. Franklin fine sir, did the Constitution establish a Republic or Monarchy, Franklin replied:

Johnny Hill is a freelance writer who has extensive experience in writing for sales, marketing and advertising.   He has a background in radio broadcasting which is showcased in the music mixes he creates for his FB page, "One Nation Under the Groove."  Johnny  has been an avid  and life long student of politics . He is the founder of the House of Public Discourse Political Organization, which he created as a platform for his progressive liberal ideology.  You can follow Johnny on Twitter, @hillj60.

The Ferguson Fail, A Process Run Amuck

What is prosecutorial misconduct? Is the prosecutor in the Michael Brown Ferguson, MO, police shooting case guilty of it? There are many elements that can constitute prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor in this case, Bob McCulloch, according to many renowned legal minds has crossed the line with the Michael Brown Grand Jury. Is the Grand Jury process at fault in this case and other cases across our nation? In a nutshell, recent decisions by courts and juries have left many people in America pondering the answer to these questions.

The Process Is The Issue In Ferguson!

As a rule of thumb, we pride ourselves here at the House of Public Discourse in researching our points for accuracy and with an open-mind. Our research over the last several days has concluded the Grand Jury process in Ferguson as problematic and may have come to the level of misconduct by the prosecutor overseeing this case. Much of this dysfunction stems from witness accounts of the incident. The misconduct in the case primarily revolves around the handling of these eye-witness accounts. For example, we have found stories of so-called anonymous witnesses for the officer in this case who remain anonymous for fear of reprisals from the local community. Many well-respected legal minds some who identify themselves as political right thinkers claim this case was a miscarriage of justice.

Officer Darren Wilson

Another problem surrounding this issue is a low bar we have placed on the taking of a human life by a police officer. The judicial process by  court precedent has given police officers a wide latitude in situations like in Ferguson. However, " death by cop," is on the rise in our nation to the point of being an epidemic. Moreover, a large portion of these killings involves " white cop," shooting a " black male." 

As in any situation there are truisms and realities. The justice system in America is adverse. Most of the time,  a cop and a prosecutor are on the same side in this adversarial system. The reality? It is harder to convict a police officer of a crime than a civilian. In most police shooting cases, a police officer will claim his life felt threatened. Unfortunately for the victim's families, proving otherwise has been a high bar to meet. Both the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings attest to this reality. 

More importantly where do the solutions lie? First, cameras on cops make a ton of sense. Second, we need to reform our criminal justice system. Our research on many levels and for many reasons conclude "We The People," need to put a better mechanism in place to ' police the police.' 

Does Our Legal System Sanitize The Behavior Of Police Officers?    

There is one sure thing that has materialized  in the case of Michael Brown. This case has brought an awareness of the need to reform the Grand Jury process. There is no arguing the national media attention in this case created a unique set of challenges for the prosecutor.

But law professors and legal experts had sharply varying views on whether the presentation of the non-indictment and legal procedures were followed appropriately, adequately or fairly. [See Source]

Judge Scalia

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to inquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880).

The Specifics 

In our legal system, a suspect under a grand jury investigation has never been thought to have the right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.[See Source] In this case, the prosecutor McCulloch allowed officer Wilson to give evidence for hours and including every morsel of exculpatory evidence he could muster.  Knowing the basic of exculpatory evidence is vital to understanding the malfunction and misconduct that this case has presented.

The Prosecutors Instructions To The Grand Jury.  

Bob McCulloch

"And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in the evidence." [See Article]

By allowing officer Williams to testify for hours and allowing exculpatory evidence to be presented in support of these above-mentioned " complete defenses," this prosecutor has ignored how grand juries have functioned historically. There were several eye-witness accounts in this matter that suggest officer Wilson did not act in self-defense. This prosecutor could have but did not present these testimonies. Many critics of McCulloch allege he should have and if he would have done so an indictment would have come with a quickness. We here at the House of Public Discourse ask the question Why? What were  McCulloch's motivations for not allowing this testimony. We are not for a second buying the notions that these citizens were not credible. Our gut feelings tell us there are  more deviate motivations behind McCulloch's action or non-action in this grand jury process.

" Lock Them up, and Throw Away The Key," Nancy Grace has a problem with this case.

What happened with this Ferguson grand jury is rare. With all the leaks coming forth from this grand jury, it was reasonable to conclude there was not going to be an indictment in this case. Missouri is known as the " show-me-state." When the National Guard was sent in days before the verdict by that state's governor, it showed this writer all I needed to know or see. Grand Juries in this country almost always indict.

Or at least they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.

In 2010, a study was conducted. In 162,000 federal cases brought before a grand jury, only 11 failed to indict.[Federal Bureau Statistics] In the Wilson case this matter was heard in state courts. In Missouri, like most states, the prosecutor has the option to bring a suspect before a judge as opposed to a grand jury. The fact is many routine cases never go before a grand jury. However, with that said, it is common knowledge that it is very rare for a prosecutor not to get an indictment from a grand jury. Cases involving police shootings is are exception to this factoid. First of all, there is no real good data on police involved shootings. But researching  many newspaper articles on the subject, grand juries more often than not, by an extensive margin decline to indict law-enforcement officials.   

Police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004[See Source] 

Our research has led us to some reasons for this. One of the biggest barriers in procuring a conviction of a police officer is juror bias. No matter the evidence, jurors tend to trust the cops and seem to side with the police in their use of violence in police-related cases. There is also a prosecutorial bias. Whether their actions are conscious or unconscious, prosecutors who depend on cops in their work in criminal cases tend to present less compelling cases against police officers. Another reason is prosecutors only bring cases to the grand jury they feel they can win. There was no way the prosecutor in the Michael Brown case was going to drop the charges in this highly publicized case. There was no way this prosecutor could do that because of the many eye-witness accounts of the incident. However, as we have noted, he could change the process and tailor a sheepish grand jury to his privy. In short, there was too much evidence against the officer Wilson to not bring charges.

Beyond Ferguson, We The People Must Answer The Question, Why Are Grand Juries So Reluctant To Indict Police Officers? 

Voices From The House!

"Yes rioting is an extreme expression of anger and frustration. However, the actual issue being ignored is racism. If Michael Brown did everything he's accused of then he was wrong. However, racism is the issue being protested and is the elephant in the middle of the room. It is an issue that has never gone away.

Yes, some of the rioting is about opportunity and group mentality. Yes, I have studied it. The larger issue rears its ugly historical head as opportunity for the corporate rulers. Racism within the ruling class wants us to fight about the details.

There is an old saying that "the devil is in the details." It absolutely applies in terms of the mass media presentation of facts and or commentary. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book." [House Mentor: Diana M Buettner]

Racism Is The Calling Card Behind The Ferguson, MO, Unrest.

Persons of color are the majority in Ferguson, MO. With one black city council member and three black cops in this town it begs the question, Why? [See:Has Liberty Given Way To Gerrymandering?] Then when a white police officer guns down an unarmed black teen who is a suspect in a shoplifting case by putting six rounds in him, one in the head while on the ground, and there are riots in the streets, people have the audacity to ask, Why? Granted, violence and destruction of property is unproductive. But a peaceful gathering of concerned citizens to protest a perceived injustice is the American way in this writer's view. Moreover, the community reaction [outrage]  to this killing of an unarmed youth regardless of the color of his skin is a predictable outcome. Furthermore, with an ever increasing aggressive police force being fashioned from ex-military personnel all across America are, "We The People," being protected or are we seen as  game for the predatory police officer with an ax to grind?

There has been study after study that has shown inexperienced cops fearful of minorities have resorted to use of force. Often, these confrontations are between white police officers and a minority. There is a growing culture of confrontation between police and communities of color, and the problem is only getting worse.

Many experts argue that police forces that represent the community makeup can ease tensions. But the more systemic problem is the political infrastructure that creates and maintains disproportionately composed  police departments. This historical tension is most evident in towns like Ferguson, MO. When you have a population comprised of 67% blacks who have become non-factors in choosing their elected officials, what you get is Ferguson. 

There are innumerable ways a community can become so disproportionately misrepresented.

Ferguson's Mayor is white. Five of the six city councilmen are white. These members are tasked with recruiting, training, and setting parameters as to how the police functions. This white City Hall produced a 95% white police force. This disparity does not equal discrimination or prejudicial policing, but it does create an atmosphere where white elected officials seem insensitive to police brutality in these minority communities. Whatever the reasons for this dysfunction, gerrymandering, voter apathy, etc  its designers have circumvented the political process that would give people in the community the right to have a say in how that community functions. Ferguson, like many small cities, towns, and communities across this country, appear to be in an apartheid state where a small but influential group of people maintain dominion by discouraging electoral participation and creating a police state environment.

With radical-right wing courts allowing unfettered influence peddling in the form of Citizens United and  liberty being replaced by gerrymandering and U.S. Supreme Court regression of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, these factions have recreated a Jim Crow aura around this country. Ferguson is a case study of just what those policies reap. Moving forward, all Americans left or right should seek to ensure the electorate- no matter its makeup - has full participation, and the elected officials are a mirror of the community. If not, it's the view of the House of Public Discourse, "The Ferguson Fail, A Process Run Amuck," will be more and more commonplace.

The Politics Of Morality, The Political Divide (Part 2)

freep.com

It goes unspoken that many of today's 'hot-button' issues are related to morality. Abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, tax reduction, health care, and even foreign affairs. In part one, The Politics of Morality (part 1), the aspects of morality discussed were of a personal nature. However, the morality at the center of today's moral discourse is social. Social morality has developed into a set of standards. In the case of abortion-how much should society value life? With stem-cell research- what should be the limits of scientific study? In regards to gay rights, how people should live and to what extent should people's civil rights be associated with the way we live? Health care begs the question, how should public taxes be distributed. The tax debate is centered around on what society rewards and encourages. Lastly, regarding foreign affairs -how should society spread its morals to other societies. [Source: Morality and Political Discourse by Yanpei Chen]

Personal Morality is absolute. 

In general, people tend to agree or disagree with personal morality traits of an individual. In comparison, social morality, in today's moral debates, there is a huge disagreement between people on what should be social norms. People gather themselves in groups and try vehemently to impose their morality on others as being the proper social norm. In America, these disagreements have formulated along political party lines, factions, and demographics. [See Article: Party Identification Has Become the Lens Most People See Through ]

In America's two-party system, these disagreements have tended to lump 'We the People' into opposing sides on just about any issues period, but; especially moral issues.

With the election of America's first person of color to the White House, we have seen no compromise whatsoever. In fact, many citizens in this country feel that the obstruction by the Republican Party has bordered on sedition. [See Article: Tea Party Seditionists Say Default Not So Bad] This environment has led to an " us or them," mentality.

No Moral Issue Can Be Settled To The Satisfactions of All!  

The above truism brings this writers research to the realities of just how conservatives and liberals think. Political thinking is very much cognitive. Thus, Cognitive science plays a role in the evaluation of how these left and right factions of political thought process issues in their brains. One thing is for sure; you can't think without a brain. Cognitive science suggests how our brains are shaped determine very much on how we think. Any idea that you may have that you have learned that you use over and again makes up a part of your mindset [way of thinking] according to many Cognitive scientists and is physically represented in our brains. This fact matters in our way of political thinking enormously. The idea that people have the same rational is absurd. People do not think the same. We all have our own unique conceptual systems of thought. However, there are some universal systems of thought. In terms of morality, there are lots of metaphors. Morality is righteousness. In general, morality is a sense of well-being. Helping people. Being a person of high morals is seen as a person of emotional wealth. For example, a person who tends to help people will have many who feel indebted to them thus emotional wealth. On the flip side, when a person does things to harm others there becomes a sense of making restitution for the wrong-doing so morality can be seen as a form of emotional economics

Forgiveness plays a huge role in morality. Revenge for a wrong done plays a role in morality. Feelings of guilt have a place in the realm of morality. Once again, all this goes to the moral accounting metaphor. Metaphorically speaking, morality has an economic system of accounting that calculates a person's morality. How does all of this relate to politics? In a word, framing. Cognitive thought creates framing [images] in our minds. For example, when you say apple, an image of that fruit appears in your mind. Politically, when you speak of tax relief what frame or image comes to your mind? We all remember when George Bush, Jr took office his first order of business was the Bush tax cuts.[Tax Relief] The first mental image that comes to mind is the word relief. If there is a need for relief, there must be an affliction of some sort. The term relief means that some faction is being harmed by taxes, and the moral thing to do is to provide tax relief for those afflicted. So, because of this harm Bush, Jr political handlers set him up as a hero and anyone trying to stop him are the bad guys. So, when you add text to that metaphorically, what they are saying is " taxation is an affliction."

So, for many in America today when they hear the term 'tax relief' this is the frame that appears in their minds. When they hear this over and over it becomes a part of their physical brain. What happens when this accrues is 'taxation is an affliction,' becomes common sense to the person. Now, with this said, it becomes clear. How media outlets like Fox news, which claims to be fair and balanced, can have two liberals and two conservatives on a discussion panel, but; the host is conservative and can frame the questions with the now known factor that most right- wing authoritarian followers will have in their mindset that 'taxation is an affliction. If you take the other sides terms, if you are opposing it politically, and you take a question that fits their ideology and argue against it you are basically arguing for it cause you will be offending the common sense of the targeted Fox news viewer. Your argument will, in fact, reinforce that ' taxation is an affliction.'

      In terms of the modern day debate over taxes and how they should be implemented and who should pay what share of them [taxes] I was reminded by George Lakoff book: Moral Politics , of Dan Quayle's acceptance speech at the 1992 Republican convention when speaking about the progressive tax  he made the statement:

Dan Quayle 

      "Why should the best people be punished?"

The first questions are why is this even considered an argument against the progressive income tax. Second, Dan Quayle assumption is that people with the most money are the best people. And, in terms of morality, this is completely false. But, to a person who has been condition on the notion that " taxation is an affliction," will buy it hook, line and sinker, even though, it goes against their own best interest. Why? Cause it plays into their misconception of their common sense. Why do I use the term misconception? Let's look at current events of current common sense discrepancies among right- wing authoritarian followers.

What are right-wing authoritarian followers?  

In general, a conservative person is against abortion and for a flat-tax. As a liberal, I am totally opposite to this position, so I don't get what the two issues have to do with one another. More baffling, why people are for the flat-tax but against environmental regulations. Moreover, why people who are against environmental regulations are overwhelmingly in favor of gun ownership no matter a person's mental capacity. Then, I can't understand why these same people who are for no gun laws whatsoever are for tort reform. Confused? These examples are pretty wholesale among conservatives, but; what do they have to do with one another? This conundrum is a typical example of a Cognitive science problem. What is it that brings these ideas together and unites them for conservatives? What brings these example into some natural order that certain mindsets of people agree in totality? What is it that makes this possible? Liberals ask the questions how can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? How you can be pro- life for a zygote, but; be for cutting aid to starving children and support and create laws that would detain and punish refugees [mostly children] from fleeing oppression. Conservatives claim liberals as irrational for not wanting to put a murder to death and sanctioning abortion. What this boils down to is different world views.

 What is it that defines the different views of the world people have physically embedded in their brains? Why do conservative's talk so much about family values? With all the complex problems we as a society face in these troubled times, why is the main issue for conservatives always family values? Some conservatives see their way of thinking and the grouping of these mindsets as a family of like-minded souls. In practice, however, the reality is that there are many different world views which lead to the conclusion there are many different notions of family. As previously pointed out there are two notions of family.

• Strict father figure family. [Authoritarian]
• Nurturing parent family. [Egalitarian]

Regarding the conservative authoritarian model which has been the model embraced by conservatives throughout the country my research led me to one James Dobson. Dobson has so many people writing for him he requires his own zip code.

Who is James Dobson?   

Dr.James Dobson

   Dr. James Dobson is the Founder and President of Family Talk, a nonprofit organization that produces his radio program, “Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk.” He is the author of more than 30 books dedicated to the preservation of the family, including The New Dare to Discipline; Love for a Lifetime; Life on the Edge; Love Must Be Tough; The New Strong-Willed Child; When God Doesn’t Make Sense;Bringing Up Boys; Marriage Under Fire; Bringing Up Girls; and, most recently, Head Over Heels.


Dr. Dobson is one of those individuals accredited for much of the Republican Party's move to embrace religious factions [Christian Right] into the party fold and his Focus on the Family operation was a huge mechanism in answering the question; why do conservatives always focus on family values. However, ask any liberal and they will tell you flat out that Dobson view of family is distorted.

Case in point.

    

What Dobson has done is use fundamental theology and other doctrines and geared his writings and precepts of the ideal family into conservative ideology. This en-turn creates politics of morality, which causes a political divide cause as we have learned there are many world views, and many notions of  family.  Dobson, and many of the Christian right and the Republican Party claim to have a strict view of morality. It goes like this; it's a gender system of family structure. Daddy is different than mommy. The father must be strict he is the head of the family the authoritarian figure. There is evil out there in the world and it's the father's role to protect the family from it. Because there are winners and losers in this world, the father must be a winner to support the family. In the Dobson model, children are born badly, in the sense as a child if it feels good they want to do it. Children don't know right from wrong, and you need a strict father to teach them right from wrong. The major dilemma here is the various views on how to teach children right from wrong and this dilemma indirectly has caused a political divide in America and morality is the root.

Dr. Dobson model advocates punishment when they do wrong. Dobson claims that the punishment must be painful enough that the child will correct themselves next time when confronted with a choice. The idea is that the child will internalize the correction and not do wrong again. Dodson advocates spankings. Dobson claims beating a child is okay as long as they are over the age of 15 months. In the Dobson model and subsequently the republican model, a child and person can only become moral through discipline. The claim is through this discipline a person will become self- reliant and a prosperous adult.

Conservatives believe there is a link between morality and prosperity.

Discipline allows one to be obedient to the moral authority which makes one more successful, happy, and prosperous. There is a logic here. Suppose someone is not prosperous. Then you're not discipline enough. And, if you're not discipline enough you're not moral. So, you deserve your poverty. We see this mentality played out in our modern day political debate. We have seen Tea Party, Libertarians, and Republican Party main-streamers and related legislation on both the federal and state levels take on a " go fend for yourself," narrative. This attitude is a prime example of the politics of morality and how it has caused a political divide in America. All of this has social implications.

Another major part of the Dobson [conservative] model is after a child has grown and become mature if they have gotten the self-discipline they can go out into the world and take care of themselves. If they haven't, adhered to this discipline they should still go out into the world [tough-love]  and let the world discipline them.[The School of Hard Knocks] If they can't make it, too bad. Now, there is another part of this. Why is it moral within this system or doctrine to pursue your self-interest? Dobson is very clear about this; he proclaims this as being in step with Adam Smith version of capitalism. 

Noam Chomsky brings perspective on Adam Smith.          

Adam Smith claimed that if everyone pursued their profit by the 'invisible hand' the law of nature would maximize one's goals. The model suggest it's good to pursue your self-interest because that's good for everybody else. In this model, what's bad, is to interfere with someone's self-interest. According to Adam Smith taxation is an interference. And, that's why Dan Quayle said "why should the best people be punished." So, fast-forwarding to our modern day times, under this "train of thought" the Koch brothers are the best people because they are pursuing their self-interest. The next interference is government regulation. Government gets in the way of people pursuing their self-interest. There is also a term in conservative language for those who don't pursue their self-interest. When people pursue the good of the community they are labeled by conservatives as " do-gooders."

 A 'do-gooder,' is one of those people who is trying to help somebody and are getting in the way of those so-called best people self-interest. Once again, this is a prime example of the politics of morality and, how, it has created a political divide in America. Now, there are lots of other facets of this family values model. What does this conservative family values model say about social programs? Conservatives claim that all social programs are immoral. Why? They claim they hurt the people they are trying to help. Because, they are giving people something they have not earned. This action makes people dependent on the state, hence the term "nanny state." This dependence takes away their ability to be discipline that takes away their ability to be moral beings. So, in the cognitive minds of the right-wing authoritarian follower social programs are immoral according to this logic. In addition, you have the mindset as the father as the strict figure with the moral authority. Moral authority can be a very interesting idea because it brings together two trains of thought.


Morality
Authority
In the text, this translates to morality and power. Part of conservative thought is that people who are in power, who have pursued their self-interest, are moral and should have the authority over the rest of us do-gooders. In short, moral people should rule. The discipline people should rule. This belief gives rise to a conservative hierarchy or moral order. In the moral order which is part of the conservative model, you have GOD above man, man above nature, adults above children, western culture above non-western culture, America above other nations. It's the idea if you look at forms of authority historically that will show you what GOD has made moral. Then there are other versions. The bigotry ones, the ones that are so out front in today's Republican Party. It goes pretty much like this man above woman, whites above non-whites, straight people above gay people, Christians above non-Christians. Now, in fairness, not all conservatives have those bigoted views. There are non-bigoted conservatives. However, it is important to understand as a liberal it has been hard for me not to lump all conservatives into the irrational, mean- spirited, greedy and stupid box. In fact, all conservatives are not irrational, mean- spirited, and stupid. Conservatives have a strict interpretation of morality. For the most part, most conservatives see themselves as moral people. In this writer's view, this reality can sometimes be a "hard-pill-to-swallow."

What Morality Do Progressive and Liberals Have?    

Written By: Johnny Hill

Article Source: Moral Politics by: George Lakoff