It's disappointing that Naomi Wolf's response to my criticism of her November 25 Guardian column – and earlier blog-post -- doesn't address the many misstatements of fact, logical leaps and baseless assertions which I highlighted. -- Joshua Holland
My take to-date:
Joshua Holland is suggesting that Group Think was not at hand.
Naomi Wolf said that the selfishness and even greed in Congress and elsewhere all conspired to the cascade of green-lighted crackdowns. Does Joshua Holland need the "smoking gun" memo? Is there no pattern of behavior available to him? Are the Fusion Centers a mere fiction? Are they subjected to daylight oversight by non-crony legislators? Honestly, I can't understand what's going through Joshua Holland's mind other than that he might be out to get Naomi Wolf for the sake of the Democratic Party machine in the upcoming election. I just don't know enough about him to say.
Joshua Holland is right to push Naomi Wolf to be more careful with her characterizations concerning her sourced materials, but what he is suggesting is almost to say, if not to say, that the federal government had to issue an overt order to the cities to crackdown before Joshua Holland will see the collusion and green-lighting -- the expectation, the understanding. What would have happened to the city that refused to crackdown, nothing? The whole federally directed machine would have allowed a city to demonstrate unmolested that Occupy could not only not have been shut down or moved but rather facilitated with social services, as I suggested before the crackdowns? The idea is preposterous. There's no way the feds could allow Occupy to work that way. It would be contagious, and they know it only too well. The shadow-government's (in the American sense; the real government, the banksters, behind the curtain) job is to protect the rich, not enforce and facilitate the First Amendment.
I think Naomi Wolf's mention of the elites is right on. We do live in a plutocracy that is a kleptocracy. We have seen an on-going consolidation of law-enforcement breaking down all of Frank Church's work. What does Joshua Holland think they do, sit around being the centralizers but taking care to leave full autonomy to the locals? Everywhere I've seen locals pass laws in support of the Bill of Rights, I see the state and/or federal government covertly or overtly working to undercut those efforts. Does Joshua Holland not see the same?
I see Joshua Holland as couching Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) as some benign thing and not part of the whole Military Industrial Complex. Sure, it's policing and not military until one sees the militarization and de-facto federalization of municipal police, which is painfully obvious. Just look at what the Republicans in the Senate just pushed through: disappearing US citizens via the US military displacing local police in matters of "battlefield America." Again, is there no clear pattern of behavior that screams out that Naomi Wolf's basic position is fact?
What is Total Information Awareness? It didn't go away. It only changed its name. What does the recent revelation by WikiLeaks about all the hi-tech spying on the world citizenry, including all Americans, mean if not that the power elite exists and will persist, etc.? The idea that the local reaction to a national, even global, Occupy Movement wouldn't be at least coordinated at the federal level in the US is, frankly, a ridiculous concept in the face of all that's been happening.
Perhaps this is all a bit too subconscious for Joshua Holland though. Perhaps the economic incentivizing and all the deal-making and going along to get ahead or to just survive doesn't register with Joshua Holland. Based upon his prior work though, that just doesn't seem consistent. He's been a scathing critic of the elite at times, even often.
Something is going on here about Naomi Wolf in particular and her following versus Joshua Holland's ideological clique that requires more flushing out.
Joshua Holland wrote:
In her November 22 blog post, Naomi Wolf claimed that "municipal police are being pushed around by a shadowy private policing consultancy affiliated with DHS," in reference to the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). She added: "municipal police are being forced to comply with brutal orders from this corporate police consultancy, by economic pressure."
I noted that PERF – a non-profit whose most recent available tax filings reveal a modest $6 million annual budget for 2009 – is a research and membership organization that organizes meetings and conference calls and issues reports.
Now, I have a difficult time believing that Joshua Holland doesn't know what Naomi Wolf was saying there. A think tank/consultancy doesn't need a huge budget if it is well-connected and is going to tout the company line. It's only the liaison for a general ideology that is decidedly not pro-First Amendment but rather directly for the protection of the corporatist from whenst it ultimately gets the butter for its bread. All of its members may not be J. Edgar Hoover reincarnates, but there's no way they are Martin Luther King reincarnates either. The point should not be lost. They are part of the establishment that is brutalizing Occupy. They are "The Man," albeit it retired in many cases from public salaries for the larger incentive from greater capitalism.
Does Joshua Holland have some interest he hasn't disclosed, a friend or relative in PERF? He's so defensive, and the absence of simultaneous condemnation of the whole Goddamned system is conspicuous (to me anyway).
Joshua Holland also wrote:
In her November 25 Guardian column, Naomi Wolf claims that Rep Peter King, R-New York, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, "told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens."
I noted that while the committee has oversight of the agency, the chain of command goes up to Janet Napolitano – Congress doesn't have any control over day-to-day operations and can't order DHS to do anything. I also noted that mayors require no "authorization" to order their police forces to do anything – the authority is theirs.
Naomi Wolf's only substantive response to this criticism is to note that members of Congress "also draft legislation." That's indisputably true, but wholly unresponsive to the point.
It is not even slightly unresponsive to the point. The very reason Barack Obama didn't push for Single-Payer was said to be because Congress wouldn't go along. If DHS goes being 100% Bill of Rights and First Amendment protecting and enforcing, war-mongers in the Congress would go ballistic. They would do anything and everything possible, fairly and unfairly, to undercut the DHS. They would pull out all the stops of the Zionist media machine to ruin that DHS effort. Naomi Wolf's point is that nothing happens in a vacuum, that all things are interconnected, that deals and double-deals are constantly in the offing, and that all of that should be brought to a grinding halt.
Rather than 1) nick-pick against Naomi Wolf and work to sabotage her efforts to break the hypnotic spell of the false-propagandists and fascists and 2) avoid reinforcing those things and point she made and makes concerning the more than budding fascism in America, Joshua Holland should point out where he thinks Naomi Wolf needs more substantiation, support everyone's effort to get the information (leaks, etc.), and qualify his critique by inserting a huge dose of anti-establishment facts of his own. I'd then have much less reason to suspect his motives, which I don't want to suspect.
"...we should keep our focus on the city and police officials who appear to be wholly responsible for these often violent crack-downs," says Joshua Holland. We should keep our focus on them but definitely not even slightly to the exclusion of state governments and the federal government that have, at best, gone missing when it comes to enforcing the First Amendment rights of Occupy.
Oh, right on cue. No sooner than I had posted this, I ran right into this: "," by Max Blumenthal. Now, that does what I was suggesting above. It not only ties the federal government of the US to Zionist, fascist tactics and super coordination and mindset, it ties state and local law-enforcement to it as well and all under one big tent, just as Naomi Wolf has been saying.
Max links to "Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper on Paramilitary Policing From WTO to Occupy Wall Street," (video below) in which "Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a national police group that organized two national conference calls with police officials to discuss how to respond to the Occupy movement" participates. He hems and haws, but supports Joshua Holland's characterizations. What he doesn't do is shoot down Naomi Wolf's position as to influence and even "orders."
How could law-enforcement be as even somewhat warm and fuzzy as Chuck makes them out to be and still be doing what they are doing to the people? It just doesn't jibe. With all of the integration with the fascist Zionists of Israel and what with all of the neocons in the US, Naomi Wolf's points just seem to be completely supported by the "facts on the ground."
You will note that Chuck Wexler kept repeating "not on our conference call(s)." What about before and after? The question should have been what is the relationship between PERF and the Department of Homeland Security and/or its fellow federal agencies? There should have been follow-ups to that question to dig for specifics. What has DHS said to PERF and vice versa that was part of the whole coordinating process?
I do agree that Naomi Wolf should have qualified her statement that PERF "ordered" the police. She should have made clear that she was suggesting that it was not a proven overt order, not a chain-of-command order a la the military but rather at least giving directives that theoretically, if they wanted to brave the ire of the feds and Zionists, the cities didn't have to follow.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)