Saturday, September 23, 2017
Search

Martial Law - search results

If you're not happy with the results, please do another search
video

Video: ‘Savages!’: Protesters march against Duterte’s martial law in Quezon, Philippines

Hundreds of demonstrators marched through Quezon City, Sunday, demanding martial law be lifted from Mindanao the day after Congress voted to extend ... Via Youtube

Financial Martial Law

A Note From Nick Giambruno: I consider “Financial Martial Law” a must-read. In this timely article, which I’m sharing below, my friend and colleague Chris Lowe...
video

Video: Over 2000 trapped in Marawi, Philippines following Duterte martial law declaration

Security checkpoints were in place along the road to Marawi City, Sunday following the area's evacuation last week as fighting between soldiers and members...
video

Video: Island Lockdown: Duterte declares martial law on Mindanao over ISIS-linked onslaught

Militants affiliated with Islamic State are vying for control of the city of Marawi in the Philippines. President Rodrigo Duterte put the island of...
video

Video: ISIS crisis in Philippines: Duterte declares martial law in Mindanao

Militants affiliated with Islamic State are vying for control of the city of Marawi in the Philippines. President Rodrigo Duterte put the island of...
video

Video: ‘I will solve problems of Mindanao. If I cannot, I will resign’ –...

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte vowed to fight against armed forces like alleged Islamic State-linked 'Maute Group' at Manila International Airport on ... Via Youtube
video

Video: Duterte: ‘I will declare martial law to preserve my nation’

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte says he could impose martial law if the drug problem in the country becomes “very virulent,” warning that he is...
video

Video: Race War, Martial Law What You Should Really Consider

In this video Luke Rudkowski in NYC with the background of a black lives matter protests interviews Sasha Daygame about the general population being...

Hacked messages of #BlackLivesMatter leader reveal Obama admin’s plan for ‘summer of chaos’ and...

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is coordinating with Democratic activists to so disrupt the upcoming Republican and Democratic National Conventions that martial...
video

Video: Meria Heller “Gun Control, National Trauma & Martial Law Behind Orlando Attack!”

Please Support The Show – http://richieallen.co.uk/ https://www.facebook.com/therichieallenshow http://www.youtube.com/RichieAllenShowMedia Tune in at ... Via Youtube

Boston Bombing: Marky Mark to Produce Film Celebrating Martial Law Takeover of Watertown

Musician turned actor Mark Wahlberg and CBS Films are set to make a movie commemorating the events following the Boston Marathon bombing, including the...

Welcome To Police State America: The US Has Descended Into An Undeclared State Of...

Dave Hodges  RINF Alternative News Grabbing the national headlines at the moment is the story of the murder of 18 year old and unarmed Michael Brown...

Ferguson Police Descend on Protesters with Arrests, Tear Gas, and Martial Law

Chaotic scenes as police arrest reporters, fire at protesters Nadia Prupis Police in Ferguson, Missouri on Wednesday arrested reporters and activists, launched tear gas at protesters,...

Feds Use Border Collapse As Practice For Martial Law

FEMA is gaining plenty of experience in managing detention facilities The orchestrated collapse of America’s southern border by the Obama administration gives federal agencies a...

Civil Unrest, Riots Coming To A City Near You! Revolution & Martial Law To...

By Susan Duclos With headlines screaming about the increasing food prices and alerts as to certain foods becoming unavailable, in conjunction with the examples shown below of what humans beings do when they cannot feed their families, the des...

Dr. Jim Garrow: EMP, Martial Law And Dollar Collapse At Same Time — ‘Empire’...

By Live Free or Die cross posted from Before It's News





Dr. Jim Garrow joins JJ McCartney to talk about a badly crippled America after an EMP attack leading to martial law while the dollar is phased out at the same time, what will most likely occur during Operation American Spring as well as the risks involved, Barack Obama’s extremely aggressive and no longer hidden intention to silence all voices within the conservative media, and the emerging threat that China holds to America.

Warning that there is an ongoing attempt to crush everyone who disagrees with them while attempting to totally dominate society, Dr. Garrow joins the show at the 2 minute 45 second mark after a musical introduction and remains for this entire fascinating show.



Related Story- Brutal Russians Here Now! What For?







Martial Law, Detention Camps and Kangaroo Courts: Are We Recreating the Third Reich?

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. Then they […]

AZ Rep: ‘Martial Law’ At #BundyRanch

By Susan Duclos Arizona House Representative David Livingston spoke on the floor of the Arizona House of Representatives and spoke about the "paramilitary" actions by the federal government and BLM and said straight out that what everyone is seein...

Martial Law’s A Guarantee — Jim Willie

By Susan Duclos


In the video below from Finance And Liberty.com, Elijah Johnson interviews Jim Willie, but there is a quote at the very beginning which I will transcribe here and then just let the video interview speak for itself... it is powerful and encompasses the events we are seeing in the world today.


"For thirty years we've been exporting price inflation. Now we're going to import 200% price inflation... this is going to be a nightmare of price inflation and product shortages... and then you get the violence at the supermarkets, at the gas stations, and at the ATM machines... society is going to have a hard time managing it, Martial Law's a guarantee." - Jim Willie




Via the video details

IN THIS INTERVIEW:
- Japanese economic collapse ahead ►1:13
- Former Bank of Japan Governor says Japan's QE is ineffective at helping economy.** What about the Federal Reserve's QE? ►4:40
- Russia to stop trading in U.S. dollar; petrodollar system is ending ►8:44
- How will the average American be affected by the collapse of the petrodollar system - possible hyperinflation in U.S. ►15:19
- Is it too late to prepare? ►24:56
Jim Willie online ►http://GoldenJackass.com


Cross posted at Before it's News


Termination Squads Targeting Veterans Before Martial Law?

By Susan DuclosA day after a piece I did about Obama preparing for civil war, planning a false flag event, a  shooting, in order to move bills that are sitting in the Senate to strip veterans of their weapons, because they would be our first line ...

Manning: Dictator Obama False Flag & Martial Law Coming! (Video)

By Susan DuclosVia the video details this was recorded on December 31, 2013, Dr. James David Manning discusses dictator Obama, his power over the courts, the pentagon generals plans to arrest him and the strategy needed to remove Obama since he has no ...

NDAA Martial Law’s Hidden Passage – The Day America Became A Police State ...

By Susan Duclos


December 19, 2013 is the day America officially became a police state, but those that watch the Senate roll call voting page can be excused for not noticing since it's passage was hidden under the following description:


Measure Number: H.R. 3304 (A bill to authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other veterans who were previously recommended for award of the Medal of Honor. )
Measure Title: An act to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other veterans who were previously recommended for award of the Medal of Honor.

It isn't until you click the link for H.R. 3304 that you come to this page titled "Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 "

They hid the passage for a reason, one that Senator Ted Cruz explained in a press release about why he voted against the NDAA:


"Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. 
"The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected. 
"I hope that next year the Senate and the House can come together in a bipartisan way to recognize the importance of our constitutional rights even in the face of ongoing terrorist threats and national security challenges. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee toward this common goal."

While there are many egregious parts to this bill, the stripping of Americans constitutional rights, such as what is explained above, is what turns America from being the land of the free, to Police State USA subject to martial law at the president's whim.


Below the video which explains how this NDAA is bigger and badder than the previous one for 2013, will be the text of the NDAA bill embedded.... for those that care and wish to prepare accordingly, I suggest you read the entire bill and learn exactly how many constitutional rights have just been stripped from you and your family.






NDAA For 2014 uploaded by Susan Duclos

Obama Administration issues Martial Law Directive

Whiteout Bureaucrats and politicians will never use the term Martial Law. Instead, the phrase ‘continuity of government' is substituted. In reality, they're the same thing....

Directive Provides Government With Intelligence After Declaration of Martial Law

James Clapper's directive fires up NSPD 51 providing Department of Homeland Security with ominous police state authority. Kurt Nimmo A constellation of federal government intelligence agencies. Even...

Greek government threatens university employees with martial law

By Christoph Dreier20 November 2013 In the early morning hours of November 17, 1973 soldiers of the Greek military junta, supported by NATO, stormed...

Fukushima – Death Plumes, Martial Law, Internet Blackout – Day 12 Q & A...

By Susan Duclos Once again BeautifulGirlByDana relentlessly hammers Japan's version of martial law where they have cut their population off from social media sites rendering them unable to share their stories and tell the truth. Those th...

Fukushima: Day 8 Martial Law In Japan (Video)

By Susan Duclos BeautifulGirlByDana is again running his live show on YouTube  and every single night he gets more and more live viewers, asking questions and interacting. Because of Dana, the people of Japan who are under martial law, muzzled, c...

Is Martial Law Imminent? (video)

James takes a moment out of showing his family around Japan to answer some listener questions. This time, topics covered include the federal reserve and the national debt, the Golden Dawn in Greece, psychopaths in a free society, martial law, and that ...

Leaked Video: FEMA Preparing Military Police For Gun Confiscation and Martial Law

Kit Daniels A MP in the U.S. Army leaked this video of a briefing with FEMA officials who openly discuss gun confiscations...

Is Martial Law Imminent? — Questions For Corbett #010

James takes a moment out of showing his family around Japan to answer some listener questions. This time, topics covered include the federal reserve and the national debt, the Golden Dawn in Greece, psychopaths in a free society, martial law, and that strange toy on the bookshelf behind James.

Ex-Navy SEAL: Government provoking vets to bring on martial law

bizpacreview.com
October 18, 2013

Former Navy SEAL Ben Smith participated in the “Million Vet March” last weekend, and on Tuesday he told Fox News’ he thinks the government is trying to provoke veterans into a situation where martial law may be used.

Smith told America’s Newsroom anchor Bill Hemmer the administration is going after vets’ Second Amendment rights, and have interfered with voting rights by not getting ballots to and from the military overseas. He referred to U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, who suggested using martial law to end the government shutdown last week.

“They want to discredit the military,” Smith said. “And get us to do something stupid, so they can lock us down.”

Hemmer asked Smith why he thought money was spent to close off the open-air memorials.

“It’s become a political war game,” Smith said.

Watch the interview here via Fox News:

This article was posted: Friday, October 18, 2013 at 5:34 am

Tags: ,





<!-- this is where we need to show the related articles -->

Food stamp riots lead to martial law

By encouraging mass dependency on the welfare state, the Obama administration is ensuring that nationwide rioting due to a large-scale collapse of the food...

CIA Whistleblower: Obama’s Plans To Destroy US And Seize Power; 70 Agency DHS To...






In the 1976 movie “Network,” news anchor Howard Beale proclaimed, “We’re in a lot of trouble!” He had no idea.

We’ve watched as the Department of Homeland Security has beefed up to the point that SWAT teams under DHS authority from no less than seventy government agencies, including the National Weather Service and the Library of Congress, can load some of their 2 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition (enough to fight an Iraq-intensity conflict for 24 years) into their thousands of brand new MRAPS and take down a major city as we saw recently in Boston.

This is the “domestic army as powerful as the U.S. military” that Barack Obama promised to raise when he campaigned for President; and according to CIA whistleblower Dr. Jim Garrow, who has just come in out of the cold world of international espionage after a 45-year career as a CIA operative in China, he is about to unleash it upon the American people.

Dr. Garrow, revealed earlier this year that Obama was giving General officers in the United States military a "litmus test," a loyalty test, asking if they would fire on American citizens. Over thirty high-ranking Admirals and Generals have been removed from duty in the past year, including teo Three-star generals in charge of nuclear weapons in just the past few days.

On Friday the Air Force fired Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, who was in charge of its nuclear missiles., citing "alcohol abuse." Two days earlier the Navy deep-sixed Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, SAC's second-in-command. The reasons given for his dismissals was "gambling."
In this episode of The Truth Is Viral, Dr. Garrow tells Publisher Bobby Powell the explosive truth about the origins of Barack Hussein Obama, his parents and grandparents, and his Communist upbringing as a young Muslim child who was schooled in an Indonesian Madrassa.

Even more shockingly, Dr. Garrow confirms information published by The Truth Is Viral last year that Obama relies on Iranian-born White House advisor Valerie Jarrett to make foreign policy decisions. According to another former CIA spy, Iranian-national Reza Kahlili, Jarrett has even been conducting secret negotiations with Iran with the intent of betraying the United States to the Iranians should hostilities break out with Israel, a scenario that would necessitate the involvement of the United States.

Those hostilities could begin over Israeli retaliation for a WMD attack launched from Syria by either the Iranian-backed government of Bashar al-Assad or the al-Qaeda terrorists backed by Barack Obama, or they could begin should Israel strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Either way, the U.S. would be dragged into the conflict. With Russia and China recently asserting influence and projecting forces into the Eastern Mediterranean, and Russia especially stating that they would not allow U.S. airstrikes on Syrian targets, the possibility for a much wider conflict is uncomfortably high.

According to Kahlili, who sits on the board of EMPact America and is an advisor to the Congressional EMP Commission, the Iranians already possess nuclear weapons, some of their own manufacture and at least two purchased from the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. Dr. Garrow agrees with Kahlili’s assessment that an EMP strike against the United States is possible, combined with terrorist attacks perpetrated by Iranian agents already in place inside the United States.

After an EMP attack, all electronics not specifically hardened against an electro-magnetic pulse will be fried. There will be no telephones, no internet, no way for Patriots to communicate with one another. In the days after such an attack, the country would be in utter chaos and Obama would undoubtedly declare martial law, sealing off major cities with the help of his new private army and Russian and U.N. troops.

According to Dr. Garrow, this is the ultimate dream of Barack Hussein Obama: To utterly destroy the United States and replace it with a Marxist/Muslim tyranny. The Muslim Brotherhood has been shown to have infiltrated the highest levels of the United States government. Valerie Jarrett and Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s most trusted assistant, are the most visible; but there are dozens of Muslim Brotherhood operatives in place in various federal agencies.

One FEMA employee, a man in charge of purchasing weapons for the agency, was recently in the news because he has published a radical Muslim Brotherhood-linked website that calls for the murders of gays, Christians, and basically anyone who doesn’t submit to the Muslim Brotherhood’s form of Islam.

Dr. Garrow goes on to talk about the murders of Andrew Brietbart, Michael Hastings, and novelist Tom Clancy and the information that they had about the Obama administration that led to their murders. He said that Obama has no problem killing those who get in his way or try to expose his true past or plans for the destruction of the United States.

According to Dr. Garrow, the People of the United States have been betrayed. Traitors sit in the highest offices in the land and they control vast resources; and they will not hesitate to crush any who would oppose their rule once this Marxist/Muslim coup is complete.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this post incorrectly identified my guest as Dr. Jim Garrison in a couple of places; his name is Dr. Jim Garrow. I apologize for the confusion. ~ Bobby

The Three Stages of US Martial Law: “What Will It Be Like?”

SHTFplan Editor's Note: The following article has been contributed by Dave Hodges of The Common Sense Show via SteveQuayle.com. If you've ever wondered what...

The Three Stages of US Martial Law: “What Will It Be Like?”

Stalin did it, Hitler did it and now Obama has the ability to do it.

Dem Congresswoman Suggests “Martial Law” to End Government Shutdown

Sheila Jackson Lee uses obscure language to characterize clean resolution Paul Joseph WatsonInfowars.comOctober 9, 2013

Congress Member Says “We Have Martial Law”

Say What? Yesterday, congress woman Sheila Jackson Lee said: We have martial law…and my colleagues know what it means… (Here's the official record.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzvViJyPBvc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8 The last time we heard...

Martial Law and the Economy: Is Homeland Security Preparing for the Next Wall Street...

Reports are that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is engaged in a massive, covert military buildup. An article in the Associated Press in...

Peter Schiff Warns of Martial Law

American investment broker, businessman, author and financial commentator Peter Schiff warns us that we are in worse shape now economically than...

Watertown, Mass. Police Want Photos of Martial Law Takeover for Calendar

Police foundation aims to make lock-down a “positive” memory Adan Salazar The Watertown, Mass. Police Foundation is asking residents to submit “real snapshots” to be considered...

Martial Law Coming to America? Unmarked Military Base, Increased Military Presence on the Streets...

For many, the discovery of yet another military base in Las Vegas has become another sign of martial law preparation in America. A car...

Main Core: A List Of Millions Of Americans That Will Be Subject To Detention...

Michael SnyderAmerican DreamJune 11, 2013 Are you on the list? Are you one of the...

Main Core: A List Of Millions Of Americans That Will Be Subject To Detention...

This article has been generously contributed by Michael Snyder. You can follow his regular writings, research and analysis at The Economic Collapse Blog and...

We Came an Inch from Martial Law, Bush Justice Department Memos Reveal

By Matthew Rothschild | It turns out that some of our most paranoid fears about the Bush Administration had a basis in reality. The Bush Justice...

Bush Replaced REX84 With New Martial Law EO

Ted Twietmeyer In May 2007, Bush signed executive new orders NSDP51 and HSDP20 to replace REX84. The older order REX84 was an older directive to...

Is Bush Administration Planning Martial Law?

Congressman DeFazio Denied Access to Government Documents By David Gutierrez The Bush Administration shocked lawmakers and analysts two months ago when it denied a member of...

VIDEO: Preparation for Martial Law

We support our military because we know there is good in you. You are our family. Our brothers, sisters & cousins. You are our...
video

Video: Top Military Lawyer: Army Bowed to Republican Political Pressure in Court-Martialing Bowe Bergdahl

Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was arraigned this week on charges related to his disappearance from a U.S. base in Afghanistan in 2009. Bergdahl was...

Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?

What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law?

And why?

These are two questions to ponder when considering the strange happenings in the armed forces since Barack Obama took office.

Let’s start with a hypothetical. Let’s say you were a hard-left-wing commander in chief who wanted the military firmly in your corner. You’d certainly note that our armed forces have been a bastion of conservatism and Christian faith, and you’d know that its members generally weren’t very fond of you. So how would you go about changing this?

Some years ago I met a very young, all-American looking white fellow who had just exited the military. His reason was that he hadn’t been advanced the way he believed he should have been, and he wasn’t going to remain in the armed forces if it provided no future. Now, one interpretation here is that he was a millennial with an inflated opinion of himself (he didn’t strike me that way, though). Yet there is another interpretation.

The Obama administration has given affirmative action in the military a dose of steroids, promoting minorities and women — and, I believe, gays and lesbians — at the expense of white men. By the way, is this yet another reason why Obama wanted homosexuals to be able to serve openly? After all, you can’t target them for special treatment if you don’t know who they are.

But the point is this: If I were that hypothetical hard-left-wing leader, I’d know that one way to change the military’s political climate is the same way you do it in the nation at large.

Demographic manipulation.

White men generally vote Republican, white military men even more so, and white military men who are practicing Christians, well, that’s a recipe for a left-behind Left. Minorities, women, atheists, and the LGBT crowd, however, are reliable liberal constituencies. So what would I do if I were that hard leftist?

I’d create a military climate friendly toward groups that are my constituencies and hostile toward those that aren’t.

And I’d do more than subordinate white men to other groups in the promotion process. I’d clamp down on Christian expression — which had often been robust in the military — and punish servicemen who transgressed against my separation-of-church-and-everything policy. I’d let the world know that as far as homosexuality goes, the armed services are open for monkey business. I’d also force military personnel to be politically correct not just about sexuality, but also Islam, so that they were confronted with the choice of saying things they don’t believe or career damage. After all, good people might rather leave the service than live a lie. And I’d issue instructional materials characterizing traditionalists as a threat, so that the low-information servicemen may believe it and the more savvy would feel further alienated.

The goal here is to create a situation in which traditionalists will be encouraged to leave the military or not enlist in the first place. Of course, this method can’t bleed out all the red-blooded, but it can shift the balance. It can ensure a few things:

• The number of leftist fellow travelers in the armed forces will be as great as possible.

• As many of the rest as possible will be apolitical, mind-numbed types who wouldn’t question unconstitutional orders.

• The remaining traditionalists would be outnumbered by the first two groups and in a don’t ask-don’t tell predicament. And having been denied promotions, they’d have little institutional power.

At the same time that I was transforming the body, I’d also have to gain control of the head. To this end I would look to replace as many generals as possible with those I believed would do my bidding. For once I owned the military head, body and soul, I could really dream that impossible dream.

Anyway, that’s what I would do were I that hypothetical hard-left-wing leader.

Incidentally, they’re all things Barack Obama has already done.

As for the generals, note that the two-star general who oversaw our arsenal of intercontinental missiles, Major General Michael Carey, was just fired, becoming “the latest in a string of recent high-profile firings of top U.S. generals,” as Reuters puts it. Talk-show-host Michael Savage discussed this on his Friday program and was very suspicious about the Air Force’s reluctance to provide a reason for canning the man who oversaw our nuclear weapons — the service only said that the general was terminated for undisclosed “personal misbehavior.” As for me, I’ll just repeat my opening questions:

What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law?

And why?

Whatever your conclusions, there is of course a mundane explanation for all of this. Leftists truly believe in their insane diversity dogma and quite reflexively try to socially re-engineer whatever they can sink their claws into, be they universities, neighborhoods, businesses or even the entities charged with protecting their compassionate selves. And in this age of increasing corruption and decadence, it wouldn’t be surprising to find generals transgressing against military code. Yet given that Barack Obama is a shadowy figure with a penchant for hiding his past (college records, etc.); that he has had avowed communists in his administration (Van Jones, Anita Dunn); that he seemed to belong to Chicago’s socialist New Party in the 1990s; and that, according to former Occidental College acquaintance and ex-Marxist John Drew, Obama was a flat-out “Marxist Leninist” who believed in old-style communist revolution, well, one’s imagination can conjure up some interesting scenarios.

The only question is, is it at all possible that Obama’s imagination conjures up the same ones?

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com 

Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?

What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law? And why? These are two questions to ponder when...

Bergdahl court-martial: Prosecutor won’t use alleged Army deserter’s statements against him

Statements made by Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl during his five-year captivity by the Taliban will not be...
video

Video: Martial Islands: Duterte’s anti-terrorism policy sparks fears from human rights groups

At least 31 members of an ISIS-linked terrorist group have been killed in the Philippines. Martial law was introduced earlier this week on the...

Bill aims to outlaw future military photo scandals as NCIS works to identify Marines...

A lawmaker has introduced a bill that would prohibit members of the military from sharing intimate pictures without consent, as investigators have begun identifying...

The Militarization of Law Enforcement in America: Blowback in Ferguson

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich The fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager and the ensuing protests in Ferguson, Missouri has rocked America. Even the mainstream media with...

Greek government outlaws power workers strike

John Vasssilopoulos  On Saturday morning, the Greek government issued civil mobilisation orders to striking Public Power Corporation (PPC) workers, ordering them back to work by...

Boston bombing suspect Tsarnaev’s lawyers protest conditions of his detention

By Nick Barrickman15 November 2013 On Tuesday, federal prosecutors and defense attorneys representing Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev met to discuss the conditions...

Next-Generation Flash Mobs: The Breakdown of Law & Order

As local police departments cut personnel due to excessive spending and budgetary restrictions, cities all across America are rapidly degenerating into gang infested war...

Next-Generation Flash Mobs: When Law and Order Breaks Down

As local police departments cut personnel due to excessive spending and budgetary restrictions, cities all across America are rapidly degenerating into gang infested war...

Bradley Manning, Crimes Against Humanity and the Values of International Law

During his June-July 2013 court martial, Private First Class Bradley Manning sat impassive. He had been in custody from May 2010, which included harsh...

Snowden's Father, Lawyer, Challenge Obama's Claims

Edward J. Snowden's father Lon (shown) and the Snowden family lawyer said Sunday that they will soon be going to Moscow to see the...

Bradley Manning Court Martial Underway: Military Trial Threatens Basic American Freedom

 The Bradley Manning court martial that began June 3 looks like another defining moment for America  — another indication of whether we are becoming...

Obama most lawless leader in US history

US President Barack Obama has overtaken his predecessor, George W. Bush as the most lawless president in US history, an analyst tells Press TV. The...

Bradley Manning Court-Martial: Secrecy and Injustice on Trial

America honors its worst. It persecutes its best. Manning is heroic. He risked great personal harm. He did so to reveal vital truths. Washington...

Bradley Manning’s court martial begins

  By ...

IRS criminality proves big government is lawless, unrestrained and utterly out of control

Mike AdamsNatural NewsMay 16, 2013 Without any direction from the President, if you believe the current...

BUSH’S LAWYERS GAVE GREEN LIGHT TO ILLEGAL SPYNG

By Michael Isikoff | In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack...

Under U.S. Law Torture is Always Illegal

By Marjorie Cohn | What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all jus cogens. Jus cogens...

10 Pictures That Show How America Is Becoming A Lot Like Nazi Germany

The history books tell us about how evil and wicked the Nazis were, so why aren’t we more alarmed that the United States is becoming more like Nazi Germany with each passing day?  More than three years ago, I wrote an article entitled “25 Signs That America Is Rapidly Becoming More Like Nazi Germany” which got a ton of attention.  Unfortunately, nothing has gotten better since I first published that piece.  Government control freaks are still watching us, tracking us, recording our phone calls and monitoring our emails.  TSA thugs at our airports are still fondling the private parts of our women and children and laughing while they do it.  Our police and our military are still training for civil unrest and martial law in America.  And even though our politicians are socializing our economy and destroying our constitutional freedoms, the American people keep sending most of them back to Washington time after time.  It is an incredibly sad thing to watch the country that you love slowly die right in front of your eyes.

At the heart of Nazism was a desire to control everyone and everything, and that is exactly what we are seeing in America today.  Most of our “leaders” are psychotic control freaks that want to micromanage every aspect of our lives.  For example, a bill that was just introduced in Congress would force all children in public schools nationwide to be vaccinated with no exceptions whatsoever.  Other new legislation that was just introduced would ban all sales of ammunition over the Internet and require ammo dealers to report all bulk sales to individuals to the government.  Our founders intended for this nation to be a place where individual freedom and liberty were maximized, but today we literally have millions of laws, rules and regulations that wrap us so tightly in red tape that we can hardly breathe.

To say that we are becoming just like the Nazis is a very strong statement, but I think that after reviewing the evidence you will agree with me.  The following are 10 pictures that show how America is becoming just like Nazi Germany…

#1 It surprises most people to learn that the Nazis were actually radical leftists that had great animosity for free market capitalism.  For example, National Socialist theologian Gregor Strasser once made the following statement

We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

With that in mind, I want you to check out the following political cartoon from 1934.  The same kinds of things that helped the communists rise to power in Russia and the Nazis rise to power in Germany are happening in the United States today…

#2 Just like in Nazi Germany, political leaders in America tend to foster cult followings.  At this point, there are millions of Americans that would support Barack Obama and believe whatever he had to say even if he was sacrificing children on the White House lawn.  These kinds of followers are called “sheeple” for a reason…

#3 The Nazis were well known for their brutal police tactics, and that is definitely true of us today.  The following photo is a powerful commentary on the transformation of police in America over the past several decades…

Just recently, representatives from 117 countries confronted the U.S. about all of this police brutality at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council.  Unfortunately, I don’t think that this is actually going to change anything…

The United States was slammed over its rights record Monday at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, with member nations criticizing the country for police violence and racial discrimination, the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility and the continued use of the death penalty.

The issue of racism and police brutality dominated the discussion on Monday during the country’s second universal periodic review (UPR). Country after country recommended that the U.S. strengthen legislation and expand training to eliminate racism and excessive use of force by law enforcement.

#4 Why do so many of our police insist on dressing up like Darth Vader these days?  Yes, I know that body armor is called for in certain situations, but many believe that the primary goal of these outfits is to intimidate.  The following photo was submitted to Flickr by Elvert Barnes…

#5 In recent years, the American people have become conditioned to seeing troops in our streets.  This next picture is from the Ferguson protests.  The fact that sharpshooters were deployed on rooftops during the unrest there is more than a little disconcerting…

#6 Just like in Ferguson, when rioting started in Baltimore the police were initially ordered to stand down and allow it to spiral out of control.  Then after a few hours, National Guard troops were finally deployed to help restore order.  We are slowly getting used to the idea that martial law in our cities is a good thing…

#7 Meanwhile, “progressives” continue to use our system of public education to launch a relentless attack on the values that this country was founded upon.  The Nazis were also big believers in “public education”, and they used it with shocking efficiency.  Today, our children are being brainwashed to accept “progressive values”, and most Americans don’t seem to be too concerned about what is happening…

#8 Yes, the Nazis loved gun control.  In fact, they eventually had everyone in the general population turn in their guns, and that is precisely what the “progressives” would love to see take place in the U.S. today.  But what would this country look like if that actually happened?  I think that this next photo which has been circulating on Facebook gives us a clue…

#9 Under the Nazis, the Germans were taught to salute a new flag and to adopt an entirely new set of values.  In America today, it is not “politically correct” to display the American flag publicly or to show honor for it.  Instead, we are being trained to think of ourselves as “global citizens” and to never question the growing power of international institutions such as the United Nations.  Fortunately, there are many Americans that never plan to accept the “global governance” that the elitists have planned…

#10 In the end, the reason why the Nazis were so successful in Germany was because the vast majority of the German population simply complied with their demands.  As Americans, we are going to be faced with our own choices in the years ahead…

So what do you think?

Is America becoming more like Nazi Germany?

Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…

Ukraine’s Poroshenko Wants Russians Interned in Prison Camps

Ukraine's Poroshenko Wants Russians Interned in Prison Camps

by Stephen Lendman

Ukraine is a US-installed Nazi-infested fascist police state - waging war on its own people.

Criticizing regime policy is strictly forbidden. Anyone opposing state policies is targeted for elimination - by imprisonment or cold-blooded murder.

Free and open media don't exist. Authorities want only their own views disseminated. Reporting hard truths on issues mattering most is criminalized. 

Journalists are murdered for doing their job responsibly. Western governments support what demands condemnation. Western media ignore what demands headlines.

Kiev fascists operate extrajudicially. Poroshenko and supportive lunatics proposed "On legal regime of martial law" legislation.

It mandates extrajudicial concentration camp internment and/or "forced relocation of the citizens of a foreign country who threaten or undertake aggression towards Ukraine."

In January, Kiev's parliament declared Russia an "aggressor state." It called on UN authorities to disenfranchise Russia as a Member State. Some MPs wanted Poroshenko to declare war.

The measure urged the world community to designate the democratic Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics as "terrorist organizations."

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister/State Secretary Grigory Karasin called Kiev's action "absolutely irresponsible…a thoughtless act designed to impede advancement to much needed compromise in Ukraine."

Millions of Russian citizens residing in Ukraine are more at risk than any time since WW II.

On May 12, Poroshenko's measure passed - police state terror by any standard, ignored by Western leaders and media. 

Besides authorizing internment of foreign nationals and/or forced relocation, it permits:

  • extrajudicial confiscation of private property;

  • mandates state control over mass media;

  • prohibits anti-regime protests, demonstrations, rallies, marches or other public gatherings; 

  • bans opposition parties and media "acting against Ukraine's independence;" and

  • requires forced labor for all working-aged Ukrainians not currently performing military service.

Martial law may follow at Poroshenko's discretion with parliamentary rubber-stamp approval.

Ukraine increasingly resembles Nazi Germany. Perhaps its own version of Hitler's Nuremberg laws may follow.

They institutionalized violence and solidified despotic rule. Enemies of the state included communists, Jews, trade unionists, social democrats, gypsies, homosexuals and anyone against Nazi governance.

Aryans alone were entitled to citizenship. Others were designated state subjects with no rights whatever.

Death camps followed. So did WW II. Does WW III loom?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.


It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

US-Dominated NATO Readying for War on Russia?

US-Dominated NATO Readying for War on Russia?

by Stephen Lendman

Mounting evidence should scare everyone - especially with neocon lunatics in Washington driving policymaking. 

They deplore peace. They demand endless wars against all nations not subservient to America's will - puppet vassal states serving US interests, letting their resources be plundered for profit.

Russia and China are prime targets - the only nations able to challenge America militarily, economically, and/or politically.

Washington pressuring Japan and other Asian nations against China shows what Beijing faces. So does America's planned increased regional military presence.

Growing numbers of US combat troops close to Russia's borders reflect confrontation waiting to happen - between the world's preeminent nuclear states risks the unthinkable.

Provocative US-dominated NATO military exercises in Russia's backyard ups the ante for trouble. More on this below.

In late April, US-installed NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said dealing with Russia requires "a strong collective alliance" - code language for preparing for military confrontation?

He lied about what he called the "disturbing…behavior of Russia in Ukraine" - using "force to change borders."

"(W)e have to keep NATO strong"- especially in Eastern Europe, Stoltenberg said. 

"(W)e are making our forces more ready, more prepared (by more than) doubling" the Alliance's Readiness Action Plan strength - including a "High Readiness" force able to act within 48 hours.

Stoltenberg repeated NATO commander General Philip Breedlove's Big Lies claiming: 

  • nonexistent "Russian aggression;"

  • "substantial Russian buildup along the border with Ukraine, but also inside eastern Ukraine;"

  • arming Donbass freedom fighters with heavy weapons; and

  • violating other Minsk ceasefire terms.

False on all counts! Russia threatens no one. No evidence suggests menacing troop buildups along Ukraine's border, its forces operating inside its territory, or supplying Donbass freedom fighters with heavy or other weapons.

In contrast, hundreds of US combat troops operate in Ukraine - readying its Nazi-infested National Guard and likeminded extremist groups for war.

Washington supplied Kiev with heavy weapons since conflict erupted last spring. Planeloads more arrive regularly.

America threatens Russia and world peace. Its numerous provocations risk direct confrontation.

Military exercises begun on Monday involve thousands of US, UK, German, Belgian, Dutch, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Polish combat troops readying for possible confrontation with Russia.

Poland's President Bronislaw Komorowski signed a resolution establishing a Polish/Lithuanian/Ukrainian military brigade for the same purpose.

At full operational strength scheduled for 2017, it'll include 4,500 combat ready troops.

According to Komorowski, the joint force is "part of a wider plan…to support Ukraine, among others, in the area of modernization" for greater combat readiness against Moscow.

Washington and Brussels want NATO members spending more on "defense." They want homeland needs sacrificed for greater militarism at a time America and rogue Alliance allies pose the world's only threat.

Russia poses none. So-called "Russian aggression" is nonexistent. Moscow is the continent's leading peacemaker.

On Monday, US, German, Norwegian and Swedish submarines joined 13 surface ships from America, Britain, Canada, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, and Turkey for Exercise DYNAMIC MONGOOSE - despite no regional submarine or other threat affecting the participating nations.

Finland reservists are being enlisted in Washington's growing belligerence toward Russia.

Defense Minister Carl Haglund sent 900,000 reservists a letter explaining their role in a potential "crisis situation" - insinuating confrontation with Russia.

Both countries share a 1,340 km border with Russia - running mostly through uninhabited forests and sparsely populated rural areas.

It bears repeating. Mounting evidence suggests US-dominated NATO heading for direct confrontation with Russia. If initiated with nuclear weapons, all bets are off.

A Final Comment

No nation in world history along with its presstitute media proliferate more provocative propaganda than America - Big Lies by any standard.

None pose humanity a greater threat. None more leave world peace hanging by a thread.

US-pressured EU leaders intend developing new ways to counter Russian proliferated hard truths irresponsibly called propaganda.

Sputnik News called it a planned "new Iron Curtain" at a time US-dominated NATO alone threatens world peace enhanced by relentless Russia bashing - malicious disinformation substituting malicious Big Lies for hard truths.

According to the Brussels-based EUobserver, "Russian propaganda disseminated by outlets such as RT and Sputnik News is finding receptive audiences in various EU member states" - because it's some of the most reliable news and information found anywhere, polar opposite Western rubbish.

Washington and Brussels call truth-telling on vital issues "propaganda." They want nothing interfering with their mind-manipulating disinformation. No alternative views are tolerated - especially on major geopolitical issues.

Western free expression is just a figure of speech. State-sponsored lawlessness threatens to eliminate it altogether.

Perhaps it's just another 9/11-type major US and/or EU-instigated false flag away - followed by martial law and suspension of fundamental democratic rights.

Police states are born this way - especially when people are duped to believe sacrificing freedoms enhance their security. They end up losing both big time.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.


It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

Did the Other Shoe Just Drop? Black Rock and PIMCO Sue Banks for $250...

For years, homeowners have been battling Wall Street in an attempt to recover some portion of their massive losses from the housing Ponzi scheme. But progress has been slow, as they have been outgunned and out-spent by the banking titans.

In June, however, the banks may have met their match, as some equally powerful titans strode onto the stage.  Investors led by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, and PIMCO, the world’s largest bond-fund manager, have sued some of the world’s largest banks for breach of fiduciary duty as trustees of their investment funds. The investors are seeking damages for losses surpassing $250 billion. That is the equivalent of one million homeowners with $250,000 in damages suing at one time.

The defendants are the so-called trust banks that oversee payments and enforce terms on more than $2 trillion in residential mortgage securities. They include units of Deutsche Bank AG, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, HSBC Holdings PLC, and Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Six nearly identical complaints charge the trust banks with breach of their duty to force lenders and sponsors of the mortgage-backed securities to repurchase defective loans.

Why the investors are only now suing is complicated, but it involves a recent court decision on the statute of limitations. Why the trust banks failed to sue the lenders evidently involves the cozy relationship between lenders and trustees. The trustees also securitized loans in pools where they were not trustees. If they had started filing suit demanding repurchases, they might wind up suedon other deals in retaliation. Better to ignore the repurchase provisions of the pooling and servicing agreements and let the investors take the losses—better, at least, until they sued.

Beyond the legal issues are the implications for the solvency of the banking system itself. Can even the largest banks withstand a $250 billion iceberg? The sum is more than 40 times the $6 billion “London Whale” that shook JPMorganChase to its foundations.

Who Will Pay – the Banks or the Depositors?

The world’s largest banks are considered “too big to fail” for a reason. The fractional reserve banking scheme is a form of shell game, which depends on “liquidity” borrowed at very low interest from other banks or the money market. When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008, triggering a run on the money market, the whole interconnected shadow banking system nearly went down with it.

Congress then came to the rescue with a taxpayer bailout, and the Federal Reserve followed with its quantitative easing fire hose. But in 2010, the Dodd Frank Act said there would be no more government bailouts. Instead, the banks were to save themselves with “bail ins,” meaning they were to recapitalize themselves by confiscating a portion of the funds of their creditors – including not only their shareholders and bondholders but the largest class of creditor of any bank, their depositors.

Theoretically, deposits under $250,000 are protected by FDIC deposit insurance. But the FDIC fund contains only about $47 billion – a mere 20% of the Black Rock/PIMCO damage claims. Before 2010, the FDIC could borrow from the Treasury if it ran short of money. But since the Dodd Frank Act eliminates government bailouts, the availability of Treasury funds for that purpose is now in doubt.

When depositors open their online accounts and see that their balances have shrunk or disappeared, a run on the banks is likely. And since banks rely on each other for liquidity, the banking system as we know it could collapse. The result could be drastic deleveraging, erasing trillions of dollars in national wealth.

Phoenix Rising

Some pundits say the global economy would then come crashing down. But in a thought-provoking March 2014 article called “American Delusionalism, or Why History Matters,” John Michael Greer disagrees. He notes that historically, governments have responded by modifying their financial systems:

Massive credit collapses that erase very large sums of notional wealth and impact the global economy are hardly a new phenomenon . . . but one thing that has never happened as a result of any of them is the sort of self-feeding, irrevocable plunge into the abyss that current fast-crash theories require.

The reason for this is that credit is merely one way by which a society manages the distribution of goods and services. . . . A credit collapse . . . doesn’t make the energy, raw materials, and labor vanish into some fiscal equivalent of a black hole; they’re all still there, in whatever quantities they were before the credit collapse, and all that’s needed is some new way to allocate them to the production of goods and services.

This, in turn, governments promptly provide. In 1933, for example, faced with the most severe credit collapse in American history, Franklin Roosevelt temporarily nationalized the entire US banking system, seized nearly all the privately held gold in the country, unilaterally changed the national debt from “payable in gold” to “payable in Federal Reserve notes” (which amounted to a technical default), and launched a  series of other emergency measures.  The credit collapse came to a screeching halt, famously, in less than a hundred days. Other nations facing the same crisis took equally drastic measures, with similar results. . . .

Faced with a severe crisis, governments can slap on wage and price controls, freeze currency exchanges, impose rationing, raise trade barriers, default on their debts, nationalize whole industries, issue new currencies, allocate goods and services by fiat, and impose martial law to make sure the new economic rules are followed to the letter, if necessary, at gunpoint. Again, these aren’t theoretical possibilities; every one of them has actually been used by more than one government faced by a major economic crisis in the last century and a half.

That historical review is grounds for optimism, but confiscation of assets and enforcement at gunpoint are still not the most desirable outcomes. Better would be to have an alternative system in place and ready to implement before the boom drops.

The Better Mousetrap

North Dakota has established an effective alternative model that other states might do well to emulate. In 1919, the state legislature pulled its funds out of Wall Street banks and put them into the state’s own publicly-owned bank, establishing financial sovereignty for the state. The Bank of North Dakota has not only protected the state’s financial interests but has been a moneymaker for it ever since.

On a national level, when the Wall Street credit system fails, the government can turn to the innovative model devised by our colonial forebears and start issuing its own currency and credit—a power now usurped by private banks but written into the US Constitution as belonging to Congress.

The chief problem with the paper scrip of the colonial governments was the tendency to print and spend too much. The Pennsylvania colonists corrected that systemic flaw by establishing a publicly-owned bank, which lent money to farmers and tradespeople at interest. To get the funds into circulation to cover the interest, some extra scrip was printed and spent on government services. The money supply thus expanded and contracted naturally, not at the whim of government officials but in response to seasonal demands for credit. The interest returned to public coffers, to be spent on the common weal.

The result was a system of money and credit that was sustainable without taxes, price inflation or government debt – not to mention without credit default swaps, interest rate swaps, central bank manipulation, slicing and dicing of mortgages, rehypothecation in the repo market, and the assorted other fraudulent schemes underpinning our “systemically risky” banking system today.

Relief for Homeowners?

 Will the BlackRock/PIMCO suit help homeowners?  Not directly.  But it will get some big guns on the scene, with the ability to do all sorts of discovery, and the staff to deal with the results.

Fraud is grounds for rescission, restitution and punitive damages.  The homeowners may not have been parties to the pooling and servicing agreements governing the investor trusts, but if the whole business model is proven to be fraudulent, they could still make a case for damages.

In the end, however, it may be the titans themselves who take each other down, clearing the way for a new phoenix to rise from the ashes.

___________________

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her websites are http://EllenBrown.comhttp://PublicBankSolution.com, and http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Filed under: Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary Tagged: | , , , ,

Egypt’s Illegitimate New President

Egypt's Illegitimate New President

by Stephen Lendman

Egypt's sham process has no legitimacy. Elections are farcical when held.

General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi ran practically unopposed. Hamdeen Sabahi masqueraded as an opponent. He supports junta rule. 

On most everything that matters he's anti-democratic. Anti-populist. Anti-what ordinary Egyptians deserve.

Egyptian elections require more than one candidate. Doing so provides a veneer of legitimacy. It's fake.

Junta power runs Egypt. Sisi heads its current regime. He's Egypt's Pinochet. He's Washington's man in Cairo. 

He's a US War College graduate. He maintains close Pentagon ties. He has no legitimacy whatever. He reflects fascism writ large.

Brute force is official policy. Ousting Morsi on July 3 was reminiscent of September 11, 1973. Chileans old enough to remember won’t forget.

A reign of terror followed. Sisi governs the same way. He sentenced hundreds of opposition figures to death. Thousands were imprisoned.

Sweeping crackdowns continue. Democracy is pure fantasy. Opposition elements aren't tolerated.

It bears repeating. Elections when held are farcical. Sisi is Egypt's new strongman. He's its anointed new president.

Turnout was embarrassingly low. IkhwanWeb is the banned Muslim Brotherhood (MB) web site. On May 29, it headlined "90% of Egyptians Boycott Sham Presidential Election."

MB issued a statement saying:

"With a 90% boycott of the blood ballot - the show presidential election, the Egyptian people have dealt a serious and humiliating blow to the illegitimate coup and its so-called roadmap." 

"This is the beginning of the end of the military coup. We hail the Egyptian People's resilience and steadfastness."

"The Egyptian people have turned their back to the sham presidential elections. All the military coup's begging, pleas and threats have failed." 

"The Egyptian people have thus told the whole world that they will not abandon democratic legitimacy, freedom or dignity."

"The people of Egypt are one nation and will continue to hold high their values and their unity."

"The honorable patriotic people of Egypt affirm that they are the only authority that can grant legitimacy to those they can trust, and that the murderous military coup has no legitimacy or popularity." 

"They further affirm that they will continue to reject the coup and resist it until they defeat it completely - with God's help - and with peaceful creativity and selfless devotion, patience and determination." 

"The Egyptian people will reclaim their rights and freedom, and will write glorious new pages of their homeland's history."

Egypt's junta-controlled press reported 37%. Independent sources said around 15%. Two electoral days weren't enough. 

Propaganda didn't help. It claimed Sisi enjoyed overwhelming support. Big Lies failed to convince most Egyptians. 

Sisi mythology fell flat. His 95% landslide was farcical. More theater of the absurd than real. More fiction than fact. More surreal than legitimate.

Reuters said "lines outside polling stations in various parts of Cairo were short, and in some cases no voters could be seen on Tuesday."

Authorities were desperate. They ordered an extra day of voting. They threatened fines for anyone not doing so. TV commentators called non-voters "terrorists."

Al-Azhar is Egypt's highest Islamic authority. It called not voting tantamount to "disobeying the nation."

It didn't help. Turnout was disastrously low. It reflected widespread anti-regime sentiment. It showed most people reject Sisi.

They want democracy. The real thing. Not junta rule. Or Sisi heading things. He failed to get a popular mandate. 

He fell way short. He tried inventing one instead. He consolidated military rule. He represents state terrorism writ large.

Last July, he ousted Mohamed Morsi. Martial law followed. Egypt's constitution was suspended. 

Tanks patrolled streets. Peaceful demonstrators were murdered in cold blood.

Weeks before the election, he said he'd "finish the Muslim Brotherhood as a group" once and for all. 

He hunted them down. He rounded them up. He imprisoned them. Kangaroo court proceedings followed. Hanging judges sentenced hundreds of its members to death.

Fascist police states operate this way. Egypt is one of the worst. Obama supports what demands denunciation. 

Coup d'etat authority has no legitimacy. Claiming otherwise doesn't wash. Diktat power rules Egypt. Tanks patrol streets. Demonstrators are shot, killed, injured and/or arrested.

War on ordinary Egyptians continues. Against its working class. Anyone protesting junta rule. Sisi defended Egypt's anti-protest law.

He "will not let protests destroy the country," he said. His off-the-record conversation was leaked. He asked:

"Will you bear it if I make you walk on your own feet? When I wake you up at five in the morning every day?" 

"Will you bear cutting back on food, cutting back on air-conditioners?"

"People think I'm a soft man. Sisi is torture and suffering."

His comments warned Egyptians. Anyone challenging junta rule assures his wrath.

On Wednesday, Obama told graduating West Point cadets he cooperates with Sisi for "security interests."

Assuring Israel has a friendly neighbor. For both countries "shared efforts against violent extremism."

They represent the worst of its dark side. Low turnout showed most Egyptians reject it.

Pew Research showed around three-fourths of Egyptians expressed dissatisfaction with junta led governance.

Sisi is Egypt's new president. Its new strongman. Its illegitimate ruler. He represents fascism writ large.

It doesn't matter. He enjoys full US support. Including generous annual aid. 

Around $1.3 billion in military assistance in 2014. Plus another $250 million in economic support. Providing it violates US law.

The 1961 Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) and 1976 Arms Export Control Act (AECA) prohibits it.

AECA permits military related sales only for defense or legitimate internal security purposes. FAA forbids aiding governments that engage:

"in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country."

The 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act's (FOAA) Leahy Law provision states:

"None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to support any training program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible information from the Department of State that a member of such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all necessary corrective steps have been taken."

FOAA prohibits funding foreign security forces that commit gross human rights violations unless its government "is taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice."

Egypt is one of many rogue states Washington supports illegally. Its high crimes against peace, equity and justice don't matter.

It receives generous aid. Obama approves it. Congress rubber-stamps it. Doing so violates US law. It's forthcoming anyway.

It bears repeating. Sisi is Washington's man in Cairo. He's one of many rogue Obama friends. 

They comprise a Noah's arc of world class scoundrels. They're part of America's war on humanity.

How long oppressed people tolerate them remains to be seen.

A Final Comment

Observers found Egypt's electoral process sorely lacking. It fell way below international standards. Eric Bjornlund heads Democracy International.

It's an election monitoring organization. "Egypt's repressive political environment made a genuinely democratic presidential election impossible, said Bjornlund.

European observers said much the same thing. Egypt's election "f(ell) short of constitutional principles."

It had no legitimacy whatever. It rubber-stamped coup e'tat rule. It prevented democratic governance. 

Junta authority runs Egypt. Challengers aren't tolerated. Rogue states operate this way. Egypt is one of the worst.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."


Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 


http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 

Interview 888 — The Asia-Pacific Perspective with Broc West

This month on the Asia-Pacific Perspective: China sets up an oil rig in Vietnam's Economic Exclusion Zone; Japan sets a 100 million population goal for 2060; and Thailand teeters on the edge of martial law.

Ukraine’s Fascist Roots

Ukraine's Fascist Roots

by Stephen Lendman

US-installed putschists are fascist extremists. Elevating them to power should scare everyone. 

Ukraine is the epicenter of European fascist reemergence. It's a freedom-destroying cancer. 

It threatens world peace. It risks global conflict. It doesn't surprise. Its roots are deep. 

Washington offers full support. It's longstanding. It dates from 1945. Svoboda and Right Sector parties are modern-day Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) heirs.

Its Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) leaders were Nazi collaborators. They fought with Hitler's Waffen SS Galician Division. 

Their forces massacred hundreds of thousands. Their hero was Stepan Bandera. He headed OUN-B. It terrorized Ukrainian and Polish Jews.

His legacy thrives in Ukraine today. His heirs openly display his OUN-B red and black flag. They enjoy full US support. 

Svoboda's slogan is "Ukraine for Ukrainians." Bandera said the same thing. He wanted Ukraine made ethnically pure. Mass extermination followed.

Svoboda earlier called itself Socialist-Nationalists. It bears erie resemblance to Hitler's National Socialism. It reflects fascism writ large.

Svoboda openly calls for "creat(ing) a truly Ukrainian Ukraine in the cities of the East and South."

"We will need to cancel parliamentarism, ban all political parties, nationalise the entire industry, all media, prohibit the importation of any literature to Ukraine from Russia."

"Completely replace the leaders of the civil service, education management, military (especially in the East)." 

"Physically liquidate all Russian-speaking intellectuals and all Ukrainophobes (fast, without a trial shot. Registering Ukrainophobes can be done here by any member of Svoboda)." 

"Execute all members of the anti-Ukrainian political parties."  

Svoboda straightaway abolished Russian-speaker minority rights. It targets Jews, ethnic Russians and opposition elements. 

Its manifesto calls for "carry(ing) out a broad public discussion about the meaning of Ukrainian pluralism for the future of Europe, Russia and the world."

Its aim is undermining Russian Eurasian influence. It wants fundamental freedoms destroyed. It wants hardline rule replacing it. 

Democracy is strictly verboten. Hooliganism is longstanding  strategy. Unrestrained violence reflects it. Opposition elements are targeted for elimination.

Post-WW II, Washington began cooperating with Ukrainian fascists. OUN-B leader Mykola Lebed (1909 - 1998) openly collaborated with Nazis.

He was responsible for massive Volhynia and Eastern Galicia Polish ethnic cleansing.

In 1949, he emigrated to America. He did so with CIA/State Department help. 

He lived in New York. His CIA-funded Prolog Research Corporation spied on Soviet Russia.

In his book titled "The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust: A Study in the Manufacturing of Historical Myths," Per Rudling said:

"During the early Cold War, extreme nationalism and fascism were retooled and employed by Western intelligence services in the struggle against the USSR." 

"One CIA analyst argued that 'some form of nationalist feeling continues to exist (in Ukraine)…"

"There is an obligation to support it as a cold war weapon."

According to Rudling, CIA and State Department officials collaborated with OUN members. 

They sponsored them. They brought them to America. They shielded them from war crimes prosecutions.

They helped them gain "positions of of influence and authority, assisting their creation of semi-academic institutions and/or academic positions at established universities," said Rudling.

They whitewashed their WW II crimes. They transformed them into Ukrainian heroes. 

During Viktor Yushchenko's illegitimate Orange Revolution presidency, institutes of memory management and myth-making were established.

They buried information about OUN/UPA atrocities. 

According to Rudling, "(u)nlike many other former Soviet republics, the Ukrainian government did not need to develop new national myths from scratch, but imported ready concepts developed in the Ukrainian diaspora."

Washington calls OUN/UPA and its modern-day heirs "nationalists." It buries their fascist roots. It ignores their criminal past.

Rudling was clear and unequivocal saying:

"The OUN shared the fascist attributes of antiliberalism, anticonservatism, and anticommunism, an armed party, totalitarianism, anti-Semitism, Führerprinzip, and the adoption of fascist greetings." 

"Its leaders eagerly emphasized to Hitler and Ribbentrop that they shared the Nazi Weltanschauung and a commitment to a fascist New Europe."

Racial/ethnic purity was a core ideological element. It remains so today. Washington's alliance with hard right extremist groups is longstanding.

Political analyst Caleb Maupin said decades before European fascism, Ku Klux Klan elements were state-sponsored in former slave-holding states.

It wasn't the only fascist organization Washington embraced, said Maupin. Post-WW I, American Legion leaders were openly fascist.

So were prominent US industrialists like Henry Ford. Fascism thrives in today's America. It reflects its dark side.

It emerged post-WW I. At the time, Western civilization was called decadent and destructive. It was in decline, critics said.

In his book titled, "The Decline of the West," Oswald Spengler said "liberalism, democracy, socialism (and) free-masonry" weakened it. Fascism alone could save it, he claimed.

In his essay titled, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions," Mussolini said, "Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective responsibility."

He called it Marxism's "complete opposite." In class struggle for social progress and justice, he added. 

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power," he stressed.

His definition applies now. Corporatism's alliance with political Washington reflects his ideology. It built for decades. 

It's deeply entrenched. It reflects Washington's bipartisan agenda. Its criminal class runs things.

Huey Long once said fascism will arrive "wrapped in an American flag." In his book titled, "Friendly Fascism," Bertram Gross called Ronald Reagan its prototype ruler.

He described a slow, powerful "drift toward greater concentration of power and wealth in a repressive Big Business-Big Government." 

It reflects a Big Brother alliance. It leads "toward a new and subtly manipulative form of corporatist serfdom." Its friendly face conceals its dark side.

In the 1930s, George Seldes saw it coming. He worried about New Deal policies eroding. 

In his 1934 book titled, "Iron, Blood and Profits," he discussed a "world-wide munitions racket." 

He cited WW I militarists. He named weapons makers in Europe and America.

He called them "merchants of death." They promote "imperialism (and) colonization - by means of war." 

"(T)he healthfulness of the business depends on slaughter. The more wars," the more profits.

His 1943 book titled "Facts and Fascism" explained "Fascism on the Home Front" in Part One. It's called "The Big Money and the Big Profits in Fascism."

In Parts Two and Three, he discussed "Native Fascist Forces" in industry and his day's media. It was a shadow of today's propaganda machine.

Print and radio's early days alone existed. Television was years away.

In his 1935 novel titled, "It Can't Happen Here," Sinclair Lewis saw fascism coming in hard times. 

It'll be led by a charismatic leader, he said. A self-styled reformer/populist champion. A con man exploiting human misery.

He recounted Merzelium "Buzz" Windrip's rise to power. His promise to restore prosperity equitably was duplicitous. His alliance with corporatist interests and religious ideologues remained hidden.

He capitalized on hard times. He instituted militarism. He established unconstitutional governance. 

He convened military tribunals. He did so for civilians and nonbelievers. He called them traitors.

He solidified hardline rule. He institutionalized tyranny. He put political enemies in concentration camps. 

He created Minute Men paramilitaries. They terrorized opposition elements.

He destroyed democracy. He abolished constitutional freedoms. He declared martial law. 

He usurped dictatorial powers. He circumvented Congress. He made himself supreme ruler.

Lewis said it can happen here. Today it's institutionalized. It rules America. 

It runs Ukraine. Svoboda and Right Sector parties have enormous power.

Their members hold key ministerial positions. Previous articles discussed Obama's new friends. They include a rogue's gallery of societal misfits.

They're militant fascists. They're thugs. They're criminals.

They're illegitimate putschists. They're xenophobic, hate-mongering, ultranationalist anti-Semites. 

Combined they represent mob rule. They make mafia bosses look saintly by comparison.

For the first time since WW II, overt fascists have real power in Europe. They hold major government posts.

In December 2012, European parliamentarians expressed concern about "rising nationalistic sentiment in Ukraine."

They called Svoboda members "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic." They're polar opposite "EU's fundamental values," the added.

They "appeal(ed) to pro-democratic parties in (Ukraine's legislature) not to associate with, endorse, or form coalitions with" these elements.

That was then. This is now. EU officials openly support what they condemned. They do so unapologetically.

They march in lockstep with Washington hardliners. They mock democratic values they claim to support.

Olexander Turchynov serves as illegitimate president/parliament speaker. He's a political opportunist.

He's Ukrainian armed forces commander-in-chief. He's Batkivshchyna/All-Ukrainian Union/Fatherland party deputy chairman.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk serves as Ukraine's illegitimate prime minister. He's super-rich.

He's a former central banker/economy/foreign minister/ parliament (Verkhovna Rada) speaker.

He's a Batkivshchya/All-Ukrainian Union (Fatherland) leader. He sold out for greater wealth and power. 

He serves Washington, EU interests and Western bankers. Paying them comes first. Ukrainians bear the burden. 

Exploiting them irresponsibly is official policy. So is plundering Ukraine for profit. Selling its state enterprises at fire sale prices. 

Strip-mining its state resources. Hollowing out its economy. Wrecking it entirely. 

Creating a protracted Greek-style Depression. Making ordinary people suffer most. Cracking down hard on nonbelievers.

Andriy Parubiy co-founded the ultranationalist neo-Nazi Social National party. It's now called Svoboda. He did so with Oleh Tyahnybok.

Right Sector hard right neo-Nazi hate-mongering anti-Semite Dmytro Yarosh is his deputy. He openly boasts about "...fighting Jews and Russians till I die."

He calls Russia Ukraine's "eternal enemy." He said war between both countries is inevitable.

Right Sector neo-Nazis are the worst of Ukrainian extremists. On May 2, they massacred 300 Odessan civilians in cold blood.

They did so inside Odessa's Trade Union House building. They hunted down survivors and murdered them. 

They're gun-toting, radicalized terrorists. Imagine them and likeminded scoundrels in charge of Ukraine's government.

Imagine Obama embracing them. They're cold-blooded killers. State terrorism defines their agenda. Elements opposing them are targeted for elimination.

Oleh Tyahnybok heads Svoboda. He's a force to be reckoned with. He reflects fascism writ large. He openly claims determination to crush "Russkie-Yid mafia" elements Ukraine.

Parubiy serves as Kiev's Secretary of National Security and Defense Council. He oversees Ukraine's Defense Ministry and armed forces. 

He directed months earlier Right Sector Maidan violence. Other Svoboda/Right Sector officials hold influential ministerial posts.

Obama's new friends are fascist extremists. Their agenda makes peace activists cringe. They threaten civil war. Regional conflict could follow. They risk spreading it globally.

Yatsenyuk vowed never to give up "a centimeter" of Ukraine to Russia. "This is our land," he said. "Our fathers and grandfathers have spilled their blood for this land." 

"And we won't budge a single centimeter from (it). Let Russia and its president know this."

Washington pledged full support. Obama pledged financial aid. Doing so violates US law. It doesn't matter. 

Parubiy wants all he can get. He wants "immediate US military aid," he said. On May 15, he got feature Wall Street Journal op-ed space requesting it.

He lied claiming "Putin's goal is to destroy the independent Ukrainian state…"

"(B)ecause it had the courage to choose a better future with Europe," he said.

He called UN Charter recognized self-determination "illegal." He said so regarding Crimea's legitimate reunification with Russia.

He turned truth on its head claiming Putin "stirr(ed) up separatist movements in multiple regions of Ukraine in the hope of annexing even more Ukrainian territory."

Ukraine "can't do everything on its own," he said. It's "a peaceful nation," he claimed.

It's waging war without mercy on its own people. Burying truth is longstanding fascist policy.

Parubiy want US military aid. He wants weapons, "modern equipment," and training. He wants all he can get. He enjoys Journal editorial support.

He and likeminded ideologues turned Ukraine into a fascist police state. It's an eastern cauldron of violence.

Paribiy deplores peace. He wants conflict escalated. He ludicrously claims Western military aid can "regain stability."

Enhancing Ukrainian might can "withstand Russia('s) (nonexistent) aggression." He wants powerful weapons supplied.

He wants "tools to defend our nation." He wants them despite no existing threat. He wants them for lawless aggression.

He wants eastern opposition elements crushed. He wants them slaughtered in cold blood. 

He wants Washington partnering with his crimes. He risks global conflict. 

He and likeminded ideologues may start WW III. Stopping them matters most.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 


http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 

Odessa Massacre: Eyewitness Account

Odessa Massacre: Eyewitness Account 

by Stephen Lendman

Fascists wage wars their way. Dirty ones rage. America fights this way. 

It's done so throughout its existence. No-holds-barred barbarism reflects official policy.

Washington manipulates criminal events in Ukraine. Coup-appointed putschists are convenient stooges. They're murdering their own people. They're doing it in cold blood.

Donetsk People's Republic leaders said Mariupol self-defense forces were attacked with chemical weapons. A statement issued said:

"Kiev bears the entire responsibility not only for their state agencies' actions, but also for the actions by citizens who illegally apply means of chemical warfare."

"Armed groups controlled by Kiev used unidentified chemical weapons on May 6 while storming the City Council headquarters."

"The defenders of the City Council have left the contaminated area." 

"Many of them had their breathing systems damaged, which is likely to have consequences and probably be a danger to their lives."

A toxic choking agent was used. One victim was diagnosed with unidentified gas poisoning.

Others were affected. Symptoms include first-degree chemical-inflicted eye burns, alcoholic-like intoxication, bodily lacerations and fainting. Victims were hospitalized. 

At the same time, Kiev forces attacked Mariupol. They did so with tanks and other heavy weapons.

Federalization supporters screamed "Fascists." Armored vehicles fired on unarmed civilians. Reports suggest around 20 deaths. Many more were wounded.

The 0629.ua news service reported "a tank seized at the crossroads of Lenina and Torgovaya streets by the representatives of the Donetsk People's Republic."

"At 12.50, 14 tanks were spotted coming from the agricultural base towards Mariupol. According to medics, there are two dead and 8 wounded," the report added.

"(O)n Lenin avenue, two people were seriously wounded - one in the head and another in the stomach." 

"A huge pool of blood (was) next to the Arbat cafe. It's not known whether the wounded people have survived." 

"Witnesses sa(id) they were driven away in a passenger car. The fighting (went) on next to the main police department."

"Gunfire (was) heard. Two armored vehicles blocked Artyom street." Residents barricaded streets. They burned tires. They overturned cars.

They stormed Mariupol's Interior Ministry building. According to a self-defense force representative: 

"Camouflaged people...storm(ed) the building of the city’s interior ministry department. A bus with soldiers dr(ove) up."

"They (came) from a military unit located in the vicinity of Mariupol. Policemen who refuse to obey Kiev regime's orders (were) detained."

"Policemen of the city department refused to obey Kiev's orders and guard the building of the city council, which had been seized a day earlier by the Ukrainian security services." 

"As a result, Kiev authorities decided to storm the building of the city Interior Ministry department. Policemen are shooting back."

"The building (was) surrounded." Self-defense forces said "(a)rmored vehicles approached (it) and opened fire with heavy weapons."

"The building is old and has thick walls, so you can't penetrate it with machine-gun fire." A city resident added:

"On the central street of the city, I saw tanks and armored vehicles with the Ukrainian flags at around 11.40 am (local time)." 

"Then, the city residents started to gather near the city executive committee building." 

"Then some of the protesters tried to go to the district department of interior, but it seemed that the Kiev regime military was beginning to shoot at those who attempted to approach." 

"I don't know if they were shooting to kill, but at their legs - that's for sure."

A separate report said the Interior Ministry was set ablaze.

RT International reported what happened. Its stringer was wounded. He's identified only as Andrey for his safety.

It happened while filming. He sustained a stomach injury. His bulletproof vest didn't help. He's hospitalized in serious condition. Reports suggest he'll survive.

On Friday, gun battles raged. Ukrainian MP Oleg Lyashko said:

"The perimeter around the Interior Ministry department building in Mariupol is completely blocked by the armed forces." 

"Terrorists are barricaded inside and are now returning fire. An order has been issued not to take anyone alive."

Fascists fight this way. Friday was Victory Day. It commemorated Nazi Germany's defeat. Russia honored heroes of its Great Patriotic War.

Ukrainians did so nationwide. Many thousands were on city streets. Imagine waging war this day. Imagine attacking civilians. 

Imagine targeting unarmed ones. Imagine doing so with thousands in harm's way. 

Imagine US media scoundrels ignoring what happened. Imagine European ones misreporting it. 

Imagine them calling freedom fighters "terrorists." Imagine them ignoring civilian casualties.

Imagine fascists fighting this way. Imagine Washington supporting their worst brutality. Imagine direct orders to commit mass murder. One fascist regime supports another.

About 1,500 Mariupol residents participating in Victory Day commemoration marched on police headquarters.

They did so resisting Ukraine's military. According to a self-defense forces spokesman:

"Demonstrators - about 1,500 in all - rushed to the police department building." 

"Men wearing black camouflage walk(ed) towards them, firing shots in the air."

Other residents burned tires near City Council headquarters. Mariupol is one of many Eastern Ukrainian battlegrounds.

Kharkov is Ukraine's second largest city. On Friday, an anti-government rally was held. Around 1,500 residents participated.

One held a sign reading: "Referendum. We're not separatist!" Residents oppose Kiev's "junta." They called coup-appointed officials "US henchemen."

Putschists are waging "war against (their) own people," they said. Thousands of Donetsk residents rallied. They chanted greetings to Great Patriotic War veterans.

"Congratulations!" "Hurrah!" and "Russia!," they shouted. Self-defense forces leader Denis Pushilin thanked veterans for defeating fascism.

He urged people to vote in Sunday's referendum, saying:

"We must confirm our choice on May 11, confirm our holy duty to continue to carry the banner of Victory." 

"We are Russians. The great Russian heritage is awakening in us, and we will win a victory whatever the cost."

Police were supportive. They wore St. George's ribbons. City residents applauded them.

Thousands in Slavyansk rallied. They celebrated Victory Day. They did so despite Kiev-imposed martial law.

Recently released People's Governor Pavel Gubarev urged residents throughout Southeast Ukraine "to join the people's militia under the command of Igor Strelkov."

Slavyansk People's Mayor Vyacheslav Ponomarev called on them to fight fascism. Vote in Sunday's referendum, he stressed.

Odessans displayed a red banner over the Trade Union House building. They did so honoring hundreds Right Sector thugs killed on May 2. Most were inside.

Crowds assembled in Taras Shevchenko Park. They did so to honor Soviet soldiers killed in the Great Patriotic War.

Others gathered in Kulikovo Field. Right Sector thugs burned activist tents on May 2. Doing so was prelude to murdering 300 unarmed civilians inside and outside the Trade Union House building.

Odessan mayoral candidate Aleksey Albu said:

"We have plans to put up a new tent camp after May 9. This time, there will be many more people there."

Odessa and other Eastern Ukrainian cities remain battlegrounds. Expect no end of fighting soon. Perhaps bloodbath conditions before things end.

Orders come straight from Washington. Eliminate opposition elements. Do it at all costs. 

Unleash violence without mercy. Use tanks, artillery, mortars, APCs, helicopter gunships, and other heavy weapons against civilians.

Murder them in cold blood. Lie. Claim they're terrorists. Say you're protecting Ukraine. 

Good journalism is the first casualty of war. It's a "weapon of war," said John Pilger. 

Censorship is longstanding policy. Truth-telling is verboten. Media scoundrels suppress what people most need to know.

Managed news misinformation substitutes. Reporting on Ukraine has been appalling and then some. It matches the worst against Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad.

Bad fiction substitutes for hard truths. It persists daily. Presstitutes make street whores look good by comparison. Marching in lockstep with US policy alone matters.

Expect lots more of the same ahead. Ukrainian crisis conditions promise to get worse. Perhaps much worse before things end.

Perhaps Obama bit off more than he can chew. Ukraine isn't the walkover he planned. He's his own worst enemy.

He may have shot himself in the foot. Putin makes him look amateurish by comparison. 

He outsmarted him since crisis erupted last November.  At times he made him look foolish. 

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland mocks the office she holds. 

She was caught on tape using obscene language. She admitted Washington spent over $5 billion dollars toppling Ukraine's democratically elected government.

On Thursday, House Foreign Affairs Committee members challenged her with tough questions on Ukraine.

Dana Rohrabacher (R. CA) said Ukrainians had a "legitimate election before, and the legitimate president was removed after we had major street violence." 

"There were pictures of people running around that we were told were neo-Nazis."

Nuland was hard-pressed to answer. Rohrabacher wanted straight talk. She failed to deliver. She lied saying:

"First of all, the vast majority of those who were participating on Maidan were peaceful protesters. There were mothers and grandmothers and veterans."

Rohrabacker interrupted her. He didn't mince words stressing:

"I saw those pictures, and I also saw a lot of people throwing fire bombs at groups of policemen." 

"There were people shooting into the ranks of police. So, yes, there were mothers with flowers, but there were also very dangerous street fighters engaged in those demonstrations." 

"The question is: were there neo-Nazi groups involved?"

Nuland was nonplussed. She couldn't deny credible video evidence. "There were many colors of Ukraine involved including very ugly colors," she said.

She stopped well short of truth, the whole truth, and nothing else. US-supported neo-Nazis bore full responsibility for Maidan violence. Likeminded extremists shared it.

Clear evidence proved it. Coverup and denial suppressed it. Ousted President Viktor Yanukovych had no involvement. Nor members of his government. 

Nuland didn't explain. She's a war criminal. She's guilty of high crimes. Her policy positions indict her. 

She belongs in prison doing hard time. So does Washington's entire criminal class. They mock legitimate governance. 

They shame positions they hold. Washington makes more enemies than friends. They're heading America for tyranny and ruin.

It's too late for mere scattered reforms. Hubris, arrogance and overreach assure ending imperial rampaging sooner or later.

America is plagued by the same dynamic that doomed past empires. It's spending itself to death. It's bullying nations into supporting what harms their own interests. 

It's threatening outliers that don't. It's increasingly having to work harder to accomplish less. It's falling short or failing more often. It's the world's top pariah state. 

It bears repeating. It's heading for tyranny, bankruptcy and ruin. Misguided policies wreck all empires. Washington is no exception. 

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. When America goes, the crash will resonate worldwide. It can't happen a moment too soon.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 


http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 

Kiev Uses Chemical Weapons

Kiev Uses Chemical Weapons 

by Stephen Lendman

Fascists wage wars their way. Dirty ones rage. America fights this way. 

It's done so throughout its existence. No-holds-barred barbarism reflects official policy.

Washington manipulates criminal events in Ukraine. Coup-appointed putschists are convenient stooges. They're murdering their own people. They're doing it in cold blood.

Donetsk People's Republic leaders said Mariupol self-defense forces were attacked with chemical weapons. A statement issued said:

"Kiev bears the entire responsibility not only for their state agencies' actions, but also for the actions by citizens who illegally apply means of chemical warfare."

"Armed groups controlled by Kiev used unidentified chemical weapons on May 6 while storming the City Council headquarters."

"The defenders of the City Council have left the contaminated area." 

"Many of them had their breathing systems damaged, which is likely to have consequences and probably be a danger to their lives."

A toxic choking agent was used. One victim was diagnosed with unidentified gas poisoning.

Others were affected. Symptoms include first-degree chemical-inflicted eye burns, alcoholic-like intoxication, bodily lacerations and fainting. Victims were hospitalized. 

At the same time, Kiev forces attacked Mariupol. They did so with tanks and other heavy weapons.

Federalization supporters screamed "Fascists." Armored vehicles fired on unarmed civilians. Reports suggest around 20 deaths. Many more were wounded.

The 0629.ua news service reported "a tank seized at the crossroads of Lenina and Torgovaya streets by the representatives of the Donetsk People's Republic."

"At 12.50, 14 tanks were spotted coming from the agricultural base towards Mariupol. According to medics, there are two dead and 8 wounded," the report added.

"(O)n Lenin avenue, two people were seriously wounded - one in the head and another in the stomach." 

"A huge pool of blood (was) next to the Arbat cafe. It's not known whether the wounded people have survived." 

"Witnesses sa(id) they were driven away in a passenger car. The fighting (went) on next to the main police department."

"Gunfire (was) heard. Two armored vehicles blocked Artyom street." Residents barricaded streets. They burned tires. They overturned cars.

They stormed Mariupol's Interior Ministry building. According to a self-defense force representative: 

"Camouflaged people...storm(ed) the building of the city’s interior ministry department. A bus with soldiers dr(ove) up."

"They (came) from a military unit located in the vicinity of Mariupol. Policemen who refuse to obey Kiev regime's orders (were) detained."

"Policemen of the city department refused to obey Kiev's orders and guard the building of the city council, which had been seized a day earlier by the Ukrainian security services." 

"As a result, Kiev authorities decided to storm the building of the city Interior Ministry department. Policemen are shooting back."

"The building (was) surrounded." Self-defense forces said "(a)rmored vehicles approached (it) and opened fire with heavy weapons."

"The building is old and has thick walls, so you can't penetrate it with machine-gun fire." A city resident added:

"On the central street of the city, I saw tanks and armored vehicles with the Ukrainian flags at around 11.40 am (local time)." 

"Then, the city residents started to gather near the city executive committee building." 

"Then some of the protesters tried to go to the district department of interior, but it seemed that the Kiev regime military was beginning to shoot at those who attempted to approach." 

"I don't know if they were shooting to kill, but at their legs - that's for sure."

A separate report said the Interior Ministry was set ablaze.

RT International reported what happened. Its stringer was wounded. He's identified only as Andrey for his safety.

It happened while filming. He sustained a stomach injury. His bulletproof vest didn't help. He's hospitalized in serious condition. Reports suggest he'll survive.

On Friday, gun battles raged. Ukrainian MP Oleg Lyashko said:

"The perimeter around the Interior Ministry department building in Mariupol is completely blocked by the armed forces." 

"Terrorists are barricaded inside and are now returning fire. An order has been issued not to take anyone alive."

Fascists fight this way. Friday was Victory Day. It commemorated Nazi Germany's defeat. Russia honored heroes of its Great Patriotic War.

Ukrainians did so nationwide. Many thousands were on city streets. Imagine waging war this day. Imagine attacking civilians. 

Imagine targeting unarmed ones. Imagine doing so with thousands in harm's way. 

Imagine US media scoundrels ignoring what happened. Imagine European ones misreporting it. 

Imagine them calling freedom fighters "terrorists." Imagine them ignoring civilian casualties.

Imagine fascists fighting this way. Imagine Washington supporting their worst brutality. Imagine direct orders to commit mass murder. One fascist regime supports another.

About 1,500 Mariupol residents participating in Victory Day commemoration marched on police headquarters.

They did so resisting Ukraine's military. According to a self-defense forces spokesman:

"Demonstrators - about 1,500 in all - rushed to the police department building." 

"Men wearing black camouflage walk(ed) towards them, firing shots in the air."

Other residents burned tires near City Council headquarters. Mariupol is one of many Eastern Ukrainian battlegrounds.

Kharkov is Ukraine's second largest city. On Friday, an anti-government rally was held. Around 1,500 residents participated.

One held a sign reading: "Referendum. We're not separatist!" Residents oppose Kiev's "junta." They called coup-appointed officials "US henchemen."

Putschists are waging "war against (their) own people," they said. Thousands of Donetsk residents rallied. They chanted greetings to Great Patriotic War veterans.

"Congratulations!" "Hurrah!" and "Russia!," they shouted. Self-defense forces leader Denis Pushilin thanked veterans for defeating fascism.

He urged people to vote in Sunday's referendum, saying:

"We must confirm our choice on May 11, confirm our holy duty to continue to carry the banner of Victory." 

"We are Russians. The great Russian heritage is awakening in us, and we will win a victory whatever the cost."

Police were supportive. They wore St. George's ribbons. City residents applauded them.

Thousands in Slavyansk rallied. They celebrated Victory Day. They did so despite Kiev-imposed martial law.

Recently released People's Governor Pavel Gubarev urged residents throughout Southeast Ukraine "to join the people's militia under the command of Igor Strelkov."

Slavyansk People's Mayor Vyacheslav Ponomarev called on them to fight fascism. Vote in Sunday's referendum, he stressed.

Odessans displayed a red banner over the Trade Union House building. They did so honoring hundreds Right Sector thugs killed on May 2. Most were inside.

Crowds assembled in Taras Shevchenko Park. They did so to honor Soviet soldiers killed in the Great Patriotic War.

Others gathered in Kulikovo Field. Right Sector thugs burned activist tents on May 2. Doing so was prelude to murdering 300 unarmed civilians inside and outside the Trade Union House building.

Odessan mayoral candidate Aleksey Albu said:

"We have plans to put up a new tent camp after May 9. This time, there will be many more people there."

Odessa and other Eastern Ukrainian cities remain battlegrounds. Expect no end of fighting soon. Perhaps bloodbath conditions before things end.

Orders come straight from Washington. Eliminate opposition elements. Do it at all costs. 

Unleash violence without mercy. Use tanks, artillery, mortars, APCs, helicopter gunships, and other heavy weapons against civilians.

Murder them in cold blood. Lie. Claim they're terrorists. Say you're protecting Ukraine. 

Good journalism is the first casualty of war. It's a "weapon of war," said John Pilger. 

Censorship is longstanding policy. Truth-telling is verboten. Media scoundrels suppress what people most need to know.

Managed news misinformation substitutes. Reporting on Ukraine has been appalling and then some. It matches the worst against Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad.

Bad fiction substitutes for hard truths. It persists daily. Presstitutes make street whores look good by comparison. Marching in lockstep with US policy alone matters.

Expect lots more of the same ahead. Ukrainian crisis conditions promise to get worse. Perhaps much worse before things end.

Perhaps Obama bit off more than he can chew. Ukraine isn't the walkover he planned. He's his own worst enemy.

He may have shot himself in the foot. Putin makes him look amateurish by comparison. 

He outsmarted him since crisis erupted last November.  At times he made him look foolish. 

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland mocks the office she holds. 

She was caught on tape using obscene language. She admitted Washington spent over $5 billion dollars toppling Ukraine's democratically elected government.

On Thursday, House Foreign Affairs Committee members challenged her with tough questions on Ukraine.

Dana Rohrabacher (R. CA) said Ukrainians had a "legitimate election before, and the legitimate president was removed after we had major street violence." 

"There were pictures of people running around that we were told were neo-Nazis."

Nuland was hard-pressed to answer. Rohrabacher wanted straight talk. She failed to deliver. She lied saying:

"First of all, the vast majority of those who were participating on Maidan were peaceful protesters. There were mothers and grandmothers and veterans."

Rohrabacker interrupted her. He didn't mince words stressing:

"I saw those pictures, and I also saw a lot of people throwing fire bombs at groups of policemen." 

"There were people shooting into the ranks of police. So, yes, there were mothers with flowers, but there were also very dangerous street fighters engaged in those demonstrations." 

"The question is: were there neo-Nazi groups involved?"

Nuland was nonplussed. She couldn't deny credible video evidence. "There were many colors of Ukraine involved including very ugly colors," she said.

She stopped well short of truth, the whole truth, and nothing else. US-supported neo-Nazis bore full responsibility for Maidan violence. Likeminded extremists shared it.

Clear evidence proved it. Coverup and denial suppressed it. Ousted President Viktor Yanukovych had no involvement. Nor members of his government. 

Nuland didn't explain. She's a war criminal. She's guilty of high crimes. Her policy positions indict her. 

She belongs in prison doing hard time. So does Washington's entire criminal class. They mock legitimate governance. 

They shame positions they hold. Washington makes more enemies than friends. They're heading America for tyranny and ruin.

It's too late for mere scattered reforms. Hubris, arrogance and overreach assure ending imperial rampaging sooner or later.

America is plagued by the same dynamic that doomed past empires. It's spending itself to death. It's bullying nations into supporting what harms their own interests. 

It's threatening outliers that don't. It's increasingly having to work harder to accomplish less. It's falling short or failing more often. It's the world's top pariah state. 

It bears repeating. It's heading for tyranny, bankruptcy and ruin. Misguided policies wreck all empires. Washington is no exception. 

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. When America goes, the crash will resonate worldwide. It can't happen a moment too soon.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 


http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 

War Zone Tech Used Against Americans (Video News Report)

By Susan Duclos Yet another sign of the militarization of our police forces and de facto martial law is provided in both an article over at TechDirt and in the CBS Los Angeles video news report below, where we find out that the government is bring...

Duplicitous Obama Civil Rights Hyperbole

Duplicitous Obama Civil Rights Hyperbole

by Stephen Lendman

Obama represents the worst of rogue governance. On April 10, he honored Lyndon Johnson. One war criminal paid tribute to another.

He spoke at his Austin-based Presidential Library and Museum. He did so commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

His words rang hollow. The New York Times called his speech "stirr(ing)." It stopped short of denouncing his duplicity. More on what he said below.

America's human and civil rights record is by far the world's worst. No other nation matches its lawlessness. None approach it.

It's by far the world's most unprincipled. It's responsible for virtually every crime imaginable and then some.

It's police state than democracy. It's more battleground than homeland.

Lawless FBI, CIA, NSA, FEMA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Border Patrol, and other federal operatives work jointly with state and local authorities. 

They target fundamental freedoms. They harm their own people.

Anyone can be arrested, charged, prosecuted, and imprisoned for any reason or none at all. US citizens at home or abroad can be murdered. Obama can order them killed by presidential diktat.

Others can be arrested and detained. They can be held indefinitely. They can be thrown into military dungeons. They can be denied civil justice. They can be held uncharged.

Innocence is no defense. State terrorism is official policy at home and abroad. Police states operate this way. America is by far the world's worst.

Freedom, human rights, and other democratic values don't matter. Supporting right over wrong is hazardous. 

Challenging Washington's right to dominate globally risks persecution or death. America is unfit to live in. Things go from bad to worse.

Obama exceeds the worst of his predecessors. Rogue governance defines his agenda. Humanity may not survive on his watch.

On July 2, 1964, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Officially it's called:

"An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes."

It was more feel good than do good. Objectives fell short of promise. They were more hype than reality. They weren't achieved. Things today are worse than ever in modern times.

On June 11, 1963, Jack Kennedy called for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public…"

He included "hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments." He urged "greater protection for the right to vote."

Segregationists kept legislation from being enacted. Bottling it up in committee works as intended.

Kennedy's November 22, 1963 assassination changed things. Johnson was a former Senate Majority Leader. He was a powerful mover and shaker.

He wielded bully pulpit power as president. He supported civil and voting rights legislation. On November 27, 1963, he told Congress:

"No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."

Enactment of legislation he sought followed. Designed to prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin fell woefully short.

Powers enacted were weak. They remain so. Equal protection under law is more fantasy than real. It's a figure of speech.

Millions of persons of color bear witness. Muslims in America at the wrong time know the sting of US injustice. They're persecuted for praying to the wrong God. Constitutional protections don't help.

Johnson's July 2, 1964 statement rang hollow. He called signing the Civil Rights act a "proud triumph."

"Americans of every race and color have died in battle to protect our freedom," he said. 

They died for imperial lawlessness. More than ever today. Johnson didn't explain. Nor presidents following him.

"Americans of every race and color have worked to build a nation of widening opportunities," he said. For America's rich, well-born and able alone. 

"Now our generation of Americans has been called on to continue the unending search for justice within our own borders," he added. 

It's selectively given. America has the best democracy money can buy.

"We believe that all men are created equal," said Johnson. "Yet many are denied equal treatment."

The vast majority do today. A select few benefit. They do so at the expense of all others.

"We believe that all men have certain unalienable rights," said Johnson. 

"Yet many Americans do not enjoy those rights." Overwhelming numbers enjoy few today. 

Freedom is an endangered species. It's disappearing in plain sight. Tyranny is on a fast track toward replacing it. International, constitutional and US statute laws don't matter.

Democracy is pure fantasy. A year after civil rights legislation passed, the Voting Rights Act followed. On August 6, 1965, Johnson signed it into law.

It nominally supports 15th Amendment protections. They prohibit federal or state governments from denying citizens voting rights based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

On February 3, 1870, it was ratified. Fulfillment didn't follow promise. Nor from the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

US voting rights were constitutionally flawed by design. America's founders enfranchised adult white male property owners only.

Laborers were excluded. So were women. They were considered homemakers and child-bearers alone. Slaves were called property, not people. 

Native Americans, free Black men, apprentices, felons, and persons considered incompetent were denied.

From inception to today, US elections were never open, free and fair. Big money controls them. Electoral fraud is rife.

Things are pre-scripted. Voters have no say. Secrecy and back-room deals substitute for a free, fair and open process.

Candidates are pre-selected. Monied interests own them. Key outcomes are predetermined. America is a one-party state.

Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. Not a dime's worth of difference separates them.

Independent candidates are shut out. Media scoundrels ignore them. 

Issues mattering most are unaddressed. Horse race journalism and trivia substitute.

Millions of Americans are disenfranchised. Criminal records alone exclude many. Effort to suppress minority voters are rife.

Half of eligible voters opt out. They do so because interests they most care about go unaddressed. 

Because candidates from either party don't care. Because corporate-controlled touchscreen electronic voting machines are rigged.

They're programmed using secret software. They're easy to manipulate. They steal elections.

They provide no receipts. Excluding them prevents vetting. Opponents end up with voter choices. Losers are declared winners.

Partisan politics serves privileged elites. Democracy is pure illusion. It's a figure of speech. It bears repeating. Americans get the best one money can buy. 

Supreme Court rulings affirmed it. One dollar = one vote. Deep pockets cast many. It's the American way. It shams the right way.

Commemorating civil rights legislation ignores today's deplorable conditions. Duplicitous Obama rhetoric highlighted the disgraceful state of the nation. He called expressing them "a singular honor."

Doors "swung open for" him, he said. "That's why I'm standing here today," he added. 

"…I have lived out the promise of LBJ's efforts." He spoke at the end of a three-day summit. It commemorated civil rights law. Carter, Clinton and GW Bush spoke earlier. 

None connect to popular struggles. Jim Crow never touched their lives. Human and civil rights eroded on their watch. 

So did other fundamental freedoms. They did nothing to prevent it. They support wealth, power and privilege. Ordinary people don't count. People of color least of all.

Clinton signed the repressive 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) into law. It violates constitutional protections. 

It compromises habeas rights. It limits judicial relief. It assured more capital punishment for innocent victims. 

Nearly always, people of color, Muslims, or others among society's most disadvantaged are affected.

Clinton lied calling AEDPA "an important step forward in the federal government's continuing efforts to combat terrorism."

Its enactment had nothing whatsoever to do with it. International or homegrown terrorism is a ruse.

Clinton said he requested legislation after Oklahoma City. On April 19, 1995, a massive explosion destroyed its downtown Murrah Federal Building.

It killed 168 people. Hundreds more were injured. A 16-block area was affected. Over 300 buildings were destroyed or damaged.

Elgin Air Force Base's Armament Wright Laboratory studied the incident. No single truck bomb caused it. 

Former director/explosives and ordnance expert/(Ret.) Brig. General Benton K. Partin was in charge. His report was damning. In part it said:

"Indeed, a careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveal a failure mode produced by (internally installed) demolition charges and not by a blast from (a) truck bomb" as claimed.

Additional forensic evidence showed other devices were involved. Official reports suppressed what happened. 

Lies substituted for truth. It's longstanding US practice. So-called terror plots are state-sponsored. 9/11 is Exhibit A.

Bush administration police state laws followed. Civil and human rights were targeted. They were eviscerated.

Patriot Act legislation alone gutted Fifth and 14th Amendment due process rights.

First Amendment ones eroded. Anyone can be wrongfully accused. Prosecutions can claim membership in, association with or support for so-called "undesirable groups."

Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures no longer exist. Unchecked surveillance was authorized.

Powers include accessing personal financial, medical and other records. So-called "sneak and peak" searchers are OK.

"Delayed notice" warrants were approved. Warrantless searches became standard practice.

So were roving wiretaps, email and text message tracking, as well as Internet and telecommunications monitoring.

Prosecutions include secret evidence withheld from defense counsel. It's officially OK. It's common police state practice.

Guilt by accusation follows. For the first time, so-called "domestic terrorism" became a federal crime.

Virtually none exists. Numerous innocent victims were charged. They languish unjustly in America's gulag. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other political prisoners do so.

Patriot Act legislation began things. Other harsh measures followed. Homeland Security is America's Gestapo. 

It operates ruthlessly. It does so extrajudicially. It targets innocent victims. It lies calling them terrorists.

Military commission legislation gutted civil protections. It grants extraordinary power to detain, interrogate, and prosecute alleged terrorists extrajudicially.

It legalized torture. Bush made it official US policy. It continues under Obama. He exceeded the worst of all his predecessors.

He presides over a repressive police state apparatus. Big Brother watches everyone. Mass surveillance is official US policy.

Fake war on terror persists. Rule of law principles don't matter. Nor democratic values. Human and civil liberty violations are rife.

Administration policies are the most secretive in US history. Whistleblowers are ruthlessly targeted. Exposing government lawlessness was criminalized.

So is protesting for fundamental constitutional rights. Tyranny is official US policy. Executive diktats can declare martial law. 

Constitutional law can be suspended. It can be abolished altogether. Federal troops can be deployed against ordinary people.

Peaceful protests are endangered. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation authorized indefinite detentions. 

Anyone can be held without charge or trial. Solely based on suspicions, baseless allegations or none at all is OK.

Presidents have unchecked authority to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens. They can target anyone they wish. They can do it extrajudicially.

No one is safe. Due process, civil protections, and judicial fairness don't apply. Abuse of power replaced them. Obama endorses them.

He mocks legitimacy. He governs lawlessly. His duplicitous civil right rhetoric rings hollow. His agenda bears witness to his lies.

'No one knew politics and no one loved legislating more than President Johnson," he said . 

"He was charming when he needed to be, ruthless when required."

"Those of us who've had the singular privilege to hold the office of the presidency know well that progress in this country can be hard and it can be slow, frustrating. And sometimes you're stymied." 

"You're reminded daily that in this great democracy, you are but a relay swimmer in the currents of history, bound by decisions of those who came before, reliant on the efforts of those who will follow to fully vindicate your vision." 

"But the presidency also affords a unique opportunity to bend those currents by shaping our laws and by shaping our debates, by working within the confines of the world as it is, but also by reimagining the world as it should be."

Obama's demagoguery wore thin long ago. Duplicity substitutes for truth. His deplorable record speaks for itself. He's a world class con man.

He's a war criminal multiple times over. He's a serial liar. He's a moral coward. Throughout is tenure, he waged war on freedom.

He's gone all-out to destroy it altogether. He deplores equity and justice for all. He's beholden solely to monied interests.

He supports wealth, power and privilege. He's mindless of popular needs. He trashed human and civil rights throughout his tenure.

He represents the worst of rogue governance. His agenda is state terrorism writ large. His worst crimes go unpunished. 

He's got nearly three more years left in office. Humanity may not survive his onslaught.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 


http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Obama’s Ruthless Egyptian Friends

Obama's Ruthless Egyptian Friends

by Stephen Lendman

Obama's rap sheet is long and loathsome. He heads a homeland police state apparatus. He's waging war on humanity. 

He supports some of the world's most ruthless despots. He's in bed with criminal elements of the worst kind. He wants fundamental freedoms eliminated.

He wants all sovereign independent governments removed. He wants vile elements replacing them. He elevated Ukrainian fascist putschists to power.

Last July, he conspired with Egypt's junta to oust Mohamed Morsi. Martial law followed. Egypt's constitution was suspended. Tanks patrolled streets. Peaceful demonstrators were murdered in cold blood.

A previous article compared Egypt's General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to Chile's Pinochet. A reign of terror followed. His "Caravan of Death" reflected it. A climate of fear included mass arrests, disappearances, torture and murder. 

Opposition government officials, academics, union heads, independent journalists, student leaders, activists, and other suspected regime opponents were targeted.

Death squads killed thousands. El-Sisi is Egypt's Pinochet. He instituted reign of terror justice. Sweeping crackdowns continue.

What's ongoing might make ordinary despots blush. Junta power runs Egypt. Democracy is verboten. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) rules. 

Fascist generals control things. US-trained el-Sisi heads them. He's a presidential aspirant. Elections are planned for around mid-year. 

Perhaps he intends winning the old-fashioned way. Mubarack remained president for 30 years that way. 

El-Sisi rule so far makes him look almost benign by comparison. He's murdered hundreds of regime opponents. Thousands more were imprisoned. 

Torture and other forms of abuse are standard practice. Egypt runs one of the world's most repressive gulags.

Muslim Brotherhood members are prime targets. El-Sisi wants them entirely eliminated. He going all-out to do it. 

He ordered the most outrageous mass-murder in modern Egyptian history. Even New York Times editors were outraged. More on that below.

A Muslim Brotherhood (MB) London-based press release headlined "Mass Sentencing to Death of 529 Egyptians Violates Judicial Norms," saying:

"The shocking and unprecedented sentencing of 529 Muslim Brotherhood supporters without due process is evidently inhumane and a clear violation of all norms of humane and legal justice."

"The verdict is yet another clear indication that the corrupt judiciary is being utilized by the coup commanders to suppress the Egyptian revolution and install a brutal regime which has already surpassed decades long of oppression and tyranny in Egypt's history."

"We will take all legal actions to appeal the court ruling and defend basic rights of Egyptians."

"These unjust sentences will not weaken our resolve. Egyptian people will continue their peaceful revolution until justice is served."

On March 24, Upper Egypt's Minya Criminal Court sentenced 529 MB members summarily. No due process. No defense arguments. No witness testimonies. No defendant statements. Diktat justice substituted.

MB's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) member Hamza Zawbaa denounced what happened. "(T)he death sentence against politicians and revolutionaries means the Revolution has entered a new phase that requires new methods," he said.

Ali Khafagi is a Giza-based FJP youth secretary. He called the court's death by diktat "genocide."

He compared hanging judges to security forces killing peaceful protesters in cold blood.

Wassat party member Mohamed Mahsoub said "death sentences against 529 Egyptians for allegedly attempting to kill a police officer, who in fact did not die, are certainly a death certificate for the Egyptian justice system itself as well as the last remaining vestiges of the judges' honor and reputation."

Former Mohamed Morsi advisor/Egyptian political figure Mohamed Seif El-Dawla said "wholesale executions are the latest results of the military's Road Map of the Future, a very special kind of justice never seen before by mankind, that will be registered in the name of Egypt's junta in all the books of law and history."

Most defendants were arrested during peaceful protests. Muslim Brotherhood members are vulnerable. 

Since last July, they've been hunted down. Some were arrested separately. Others went underground. MB membership is banned.

Police state laws run things. Violators face long prison terms. Others face death by diktat. Obama supports fascist lawlessness. 

So does bipartisan complicity. Legislation was enacted approving military and economic aid. Congress and Obama intend it for Ukrainian putschists.

Democracy is verboten. Both countries abhor it. Planned sham elections substitute. Harsh crackdowns target nonbelievers. 

Junta leaders call MB a "terrorist organization." Israel calls Palestinians and supportive groups wanting freedom and justice the same thing.

Monday's Egyptian court verdict may be prelude for more to come. On March 25, a second mass show trial began. More on that below. Police states operate this way. 

Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are the region's worst. They're valued US allies. Militarized ruthlessness substitutes for legitimate governance.

Kangaroo court show trials substitute for legitimate ones. Predictable outcomes follow. They resemble Nazi era Roland Freisler proceedings. He helped Nazify German law.

He was State Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Justice/Judge President of the People's Court. Show trials reflected his reign of terror. 

Verdicts nearly always sided with prosecutorial charges. They were virtual death sentences. Thousands were imposed. Freisler was judge, jury and executioner. His word was law.

He humiliated defendants in court. He railed against them. He admired Andrei Vyshinsky. He was chief prosecutor during Stalinist purge trials. Freisler acted the same way.

So did Egyptian Judge Said Youssef. Hd shouted during court proceedings. He did so in response to defense counsel protests. Some were barred from his court entirely.

Judgment was rendered before prosecutions began. Defense counsel were banned from hearing Youssef's verdict. 

Reuters said "(f)amily members stood outside the courthouse screaming after" it was rendered. Defense counsel said it was unprecedented in modern times.

State television reported what happened without comment. A government spokesman said Cairo officials don't comment on judicial matters. Junta leaders ordered them. Rubber-stamp courts enforce them.

Sayaf Gamal was sentenced to death in absentia. He's undercover in hiding. He told Reuters by phone:

"We did not expect such a brutal sentence. But at the same time, this military regime just wants to kill anybody who wants to express an opinion" contrary to its own.

"They are willing to kill everybody so that there is no freedom of expression."

Mohamed Mahsoub was Morsi's legal affairs minister. On Facebook, he called the court's decision "a ruling calling for the execution of justice."

Dubious charges included violence, inciting murder, storming a police station, attacking state personnel, as well as damaging public and private property.

Nabil Abdel Salam defends MB members. "This is the quickest case and the number sentenced to death is the largest in the history of the judiciary," he said.

Mohamed Zaree is Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies program manager. 

He said "(a) second year student in the faculty of law would never issue this verdict. There are a lot of flaws in this verdict. I think maybe an appeal could be successful but nothing is predictable."

Human Rights Watch's Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson said:

"It’s shocking even amid Egypt's deep political repression that a court has sentenced 529 people to death without giving them any meaningful opportunity to defend themselves."

"The Minya court failed to carry out its most fundamental duty to assess the individual guilt of each defendant, violating the most basic fair trial right. These death sentences should be immediately quashed."

Amnesty International called the ruling "grotesque." Its Middle East and North Africa program director Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui said:

"This is injustice writ large and these death sentences must be quashed. Imposing death sentences of this magnitude in a single case makes Egypt surpass most other countries' use of capital punishment in a year."

"Egypt's courts are quick to punish Mohamed Morsi's supporters but ignore gross human rights violations by the security forces." 

"While thousands of Morsi's supporters languish in jail, there has not been an adequate investigation into the deaths of hundreds of protesters." 

"Just one police officer is facing a prison sentence, for the deaths of 37 detainees."

"Without an independent and impartial process that can deliver truth and justice for all, many will question whether Egypt's criminal justice system has indeed anything to do with justice." 

"In any event, recourse to the death penalty is inherently unjust, and the Egyptian authorities should impose a moratorium on executions, with a view to abolishing it."

On March 25, 683 more MB members went on trial. Mohamed Badie among them. He was arrested last August. He's MB Supreme Guide.

Trial proceedings were adjourned until April 28. Defendants face charges similar to those convicted.

Hundreds more may ahead. Egypt's caravan of death continues on streets. It's ongoing in court. It shows no signs of ending.

A Final Comment

New York Times editors support virtually every US tinpot despot ally. They endorse Kiev fascist putschists. They're blind to Israeli injustice.  

They whitewash state-sponsored crimes. Ones too grave to ignore are suppressed. They're back wrong over right. They occasionally surprise. 

A previous article said broken clocks are right twice daily. On March 24, Times editors surprised. They headlined "Egypt's Miscarriage of Justice," saying:

"Its been on an alarming downward spiral ever since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011." 

"Even so, the court verdict on Monday that condemned 529 Islamists to death for the killing of a single police officer last summer was a uniquely shocking example of a judicial system run amok."

"(I)t represents an outrageous escalation of the military-led government's ruthless crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist supporters of its ally, Mohamed Morsi."

Give credit where it's due. It begs the question. Why aren't Times editors always on the right side of history? Why only on rare occasions?

Being there is its own reward. This writer challenged Times editors before by open letter.

It asked if imperial wars bothered them. Does human suffering matter? Is business as usual OK? Are sham elections? Is democracy for the few alone?

Do corporate interests count more than popular ones? Do wealth, power, privilege, and unchallenged dominance alone matter? What about an unconscionable growing wealth gap?

How about corporate and political lawlessness? What about a private banking cartel controlling America's money? 

Is looting the federal Treasury OK? What about reckless money printing madness serving them?

Do growing poverty, homelessness, hunger and deprivation concern you? What about deepening social decay symptomatic of national decline?

How about growing millions worldwide calling America a pariah state for good reason? Is this the America you support, it asked?

Expose what's wrong. Denounce it. Be consistent. Do it daily. Try publishing "All the News That's Fit to Print" for real. 

You'd be heroic for trying. You'd be eulogized. You'd gain worldwide support. Try it sometime and see. 

Real news and commentaries substituting for managed misinformation would help reverse your tarnished image. 

What better time to reverse longstanding policy than now. This writer will lead cheers if you try. So will many likeminded truth, equity and justice supporters.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 


http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

A Military Plot to Take Over America: Fifty Years Later, Was the Mission Accomplished?

“I’m suggesting Mr. President, there’s a military plot to take over the Government of these United States, next Sunday…”—Col. Martin ‘Jiggs’ Casey, Seven Days in May (1964) With a screenplay written by Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone, director John Frankenheimer’s 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May is a clear warning to beware of martial law packaged as […]

Currency War Could Collapse US Economy (Video)

By Susan DuclosA war just as devastating as a military war without destroyed cities and states from bombs dropping as a result, but instead a currency war destroys from within, which will result in chaos on the street, martial law, food riots...etc..Th...

Ukraine Is About Death Of The Dollar (Videos)

By Susan Duclos - Originally posted at Before It's News



"Those wild and crazy Mayans put down their marker that the end of the world would occur on Dec. 21, 2012 — about two months from now. There is, of course, some small chance that they might be right. On the other hand, there is a very large probability that the real end of the world will occur around March 4, 2014.

The doomsday clock will ring then because the U.S. economy may fully crash around that date, which will, in turn, bring down all world economies and all hope of any recovery for the foreseeable future — certainly over the course of most of our lifetimes." - Grady Means, October 2012

It is March 2014 and before detractors claim that March 4, 2014 is the predicted date, please note that in the quote it says "around that date" in the quote above, not predicting the actual date.


Which leads to an excellent article over at OmegaShock, who notes as I show in the first video below, that in 2011 and Obama official made it clear the goal was to "kill the dollar," and just over a year ago, Doug Hagmann of the Hagmann and Hagmann Report also connected the dots about the killing of the US dollar.


Both those videos will be shown below mine so everyone can see how everything that is happening today was planned and orchestrated.


Before they ever started down this road, the US State Department and the alphabet agencies of North America and Europe knew that nothing of long term significance would occur in Kiev. They knew that any pro-EU coup would be temporary. They knew that Russia would move to solidify her presence in Crimea. They knew that far-right groups would muscle their way into this Ukrainian Revolution. They knew that Ukraine would be thrown into turmoil and cause further damage to an already damaged country. And… They knew that there would be no strategic gain to the EU or the US.
So, why did they do this?
Why did they invest several billion dollars in an activity that could only fail?
The answer is that it’s not going to fail because Ukraine is only a diversion – a misdirection. To quote Penn & Teller, it’s purpose is to lead attention away from a secret move. The next question is… 
What is this ‘secret move’ that they do not want us to see?

The answer? 


Killing the US dollar... total, imminent, economic collapse.


All eyes are on Ukraine, the US destabilizing the Ukraine, Russia moving to protect their interests in the Crimea region and by the time all eyes start looking around again, the dollar will be dead, the economy near total collapse and Obama will have everything in place to declare martial law.


Watch all three videos and see if you agree.






Details from the video below:


From Doug Hagmann of Canada Free Press comes a chilling account of what's in store for us if we continue to ignore the bare-faced warnings of the central power base..


Here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/...


Some might be surprised to learn that the fate of America's economy has already been determined, verified and announced by the Obama White House. Yet, it has received scant attention from the corporate media. In 2011, economist Kyle Bass interviewed a senior member of the Obama administration about its planned solutions for fixing the US economy and trade deficit[ia].


Among the questions he asked was about U.S. exports and wages, but the question itself was not nearly as important as the response he received from this senior administration official. In fact, this single, seven word response clarifies everything, explains everything, and leaves little else to discuss: "We're just going to kill



The Damn Fool in the White House

The Damn Fool in the White House

by Stephen Lendman

Geopolitical conditions today are incendiary. Obama's war on Syria rages. No end in sight looms. 

Washington manipulated peace talks to fail. Odds favor full scale US intervention. Doing so risks regional war.

In late February, Israel bombed Hezbollah targets. It did so along Lebanon's border with Syria.

Hezbollah vowed to respond "at the appropriate time." It justifiably denounced "blatant" Israeli "aggression."

Washington and Israel partner in regional adventurism. Do Obama and Netanyahu want war on Lebanon? Are they planning regional conflict? 

Will Iran be targeted? Will US-orchestrated Venezuelan violence continue? Will other nations be targeted for regime change?

The damn fool in the White House risks global war. Ukraine is a major flashpoint. Conditions today are the most dangerous since the 1962 missiles of October crisis.

Jack Kennedy was president. Early in his administration he changed from cold warrior to peacemaker. 

He wanted all nuclear weapons abolished. He favored "general and complete disarmament." He wanted all US forces out of Vietnam by December 1965.

He wanted to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

After resolving the 1962 crisis, he said he "never had the slightest intention" of confronting Cuba or Soviet Russia aggressively.

The damn fool in the White House is no Jack Kennedy. Neocons infest his administration. Rogue elements make policy.

Ousting Ukraine's democratically elected government was planned long before violence erupted last November.

Obama partnered with neo-Nazis extremists. He's got a tiger by the tail. Millions of Ukrainians reject them. Expect millions more to join them once their agenda becomes apparent.

Eastern Ukraine is largely pro-Russian. Crimeans may choose independence. East/West tensions keep escalating.

The damn fool in the White House risks war. He outrageously warned Putin against intervening.

On Saturday, Russia's upper house Federation Council authorized use of military forces in Crimea.

Putin requested deployment permission to protect the safety of Russian nationals.

On Sunday, RIA Novosti reported "(l)arge movements of Russian troops...around the (Crimean) peninsula…"

Western media headlines lied. They screamed Russian invasion. The CIA-linked Washington Post claimed "Russian forces seize(d) Crimea."

Neo-Nazi coup d'etat interim Ukraine president Oleksandr Turchynov accused Russia of "direct aggression against the sovereignty of Ukraine."

Neocon WaPo editors headlined "Condemnation isn't enough for Russian actions in Crimea."

"Invasion," they screamed. They outrageously accused Putin of "provoking a separatist rebellion..."

Obama and EU partners "must act quickly to prevent Ukraine's dismemberment," they said.

They support Ukraine's illegitimate xenophobic, ultranationalist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi coup plotters. They demand Moscow recognize them.

They demand Obama order a "heavy price" otherwise. They want Western monied interests given a free hand to rape and pillage Ukraine. They barely stopped short of urging war.

On Saturday, Obama and Putin spoke for 90 minutes. The damn fool in the White House wrongfully accused him of breaching international law. 

He threatened unspecified "costs." Washington won't participate in upcoming preparatory G-8 talks, he said. Russia risks political and economic isolation, he added.

Ukrainians have the right to determine their own future, he claimed. His orchestrated coup denies them entirely.

Putin won't be bullied. He won't roll over for Washington. He'll responsibly defend Russian interests. 

He'll do so, he told Obama. He'll protect the safety and security of Crimean Russian nationals, he said. He'll do so in other eastern areas if needed.

Real threats exist. He'll address them responsibly. If violence threatens Russian nationals, he'll take "all necessary measures" against it.

He'll do so "within the framework of international law." He stressed the need to prevent crisis conditions from escalating. He expressed concern about Kiev ultranationalist putschists usurping power.

Security Council members held an emergency Saturday session. Vitaly Churkin is Russia's UN ambassador.

Crimean authorities requested Russian help, he said. Claims about invading Russian forces are false.

"In the eastern part of Ukraine and Crimea in particular, we have seen the emergence of people from Kiev with a clear intention of repeating what has been happening in the Western part of Ukraine," he said.

Coup plotters "want to replace regional governments," he stressed.

Radicalized elements control Kiev, he added. They replaced what remains of legitimate Ukrainian governance. 

Churkin called on Security Council members to act responsibly. He wants them to tell Kiev elements to refrain from violence.

Gunmen attempts to seize control of Crimean government buildings were foiled, he explained.

Russia's Federation Council authorized limited stabilizing military forces "on the territory of Ukraine" until "socio-political" conditions "normal(ize)."

Putin hasn't yet ordered it, he said. Claims otherwise are false. Or that Russia intends using military force against Ukraine.

Churkin urged all sides act "with cool heads." He wants Security Council members to order reinstitution of the February 21 agreement.

He wants Ukraine's legitimate government respected. He recommended establishing national unity governance.

Events in Ukraine remain fluid. Voice of Russia (VOR) reported mass defections from Ukraine's military serving in Crimea.

Deployed units are joining local self-defense forces. Soldiers doing so reject Kiev putschists. They resigned from Ukraine's military. Key is what its commanders do ahead.

At the same time, thousands of pro-Moscow supporters rallied in eastern Ukrainian cities. They back Russia's anti-Kiev position.

On Saturday, RT.com headlined "Ukrainian Navy flagship takes Russia's side - report."

The Hetman Sahaidachny reportedly refused to follow Kiev orders. It hoisted the Russian flag.

Federation Council member Igor Morozov said it "c(ame) over to our side today." The move came after Ukraine's "Navy command resigned Friday," said RT.

Coup d'etat president Aleksandr Turchinov appointed Rear Admiral Denis Berezovsky new navy chief.

He defected straightaway. "I, Berezovksy Denis, swear allegiance to the Crimean people and pledge to protect them, as required by (military) regulations.," he said.

The Hetman Sahaidachny headed home to Sevastopol after taking part in a Yanukovych authorized counter-piracy operation with NATO and the EU.

On Saturday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev spoke to his illegitimate Ukrainian counterpart, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. He urged both sides prioritize stability.

He said Russia reserves the right to protect "the lawful interests of citizens and servicemen deployed in the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea."

If needed, Russian forces "have the right to act in the framework of the mandate issued by the Federation Council to the president," he added.

Ukrainian officials act irresponsibly "if they make unlawful decisions on the use of force against Russian citizens," he stressed.

On Sunday, Ukraine's coup d'etat parliament held an emergency closed-door session. Reports suggest martial law may be imposed.

Neo-Nazis operate this way. Rule of law principles don't matter. Imposed tyranny ups the stakes further. 

It remains to be seen how western Ukrainians react. Expect eastern ones to ignore Kiev diktats. What happens then is up for grabs.

On Sunday, Crimean Prime Minister Vladimir Konstantinov told Kiev to stay out of Crimea's business.

"You in Kiev sort it out between yourselves, and we will deal with the republic's problems," he said.

Most Crimean law enforcement and military officials feel the same way, he added. They support local defense forces.

They want protection from anti-Russian elements. Konstantinov warned Kiev against forcefully trying to usurp control in Crimea as well as other areas resisting its authority.

On March 2, Ukraine's Belgorod Governor Yevgeny Savchenko said three pro-Russian regions reported increasing refugee flows.

Thousands from southern, eastern and central Ukraine came to Belgorod. They reject Kiev authority. They're concerned for their safety.

Rostov Region Governor Vasily Golubev said Ukrainians no longer feel safe in their country. Bryansk Region Governor Nikolay Denin said the same thing.

Russia's Federal Border Guard Service estimates around 675,000 Ukrainians sought refuge in Russia in January and February.

Expect many thousands more to join them. Chaotic conditions drive them to seek safety.

On Saturday, Russian immigration authorities reported 143,000 asylum requests in a two week period. They promised expedited processing of their requests.

According to Federal Migration Service citizenship department head Valentina Kazakova:

"The tragic events in Ukraine have sharply increased the number of applications to regional migration authorities."

"People are bewildered, frightened and despondent, she added.

Increasing numbers of Ukrainians living in Russia are applying for citizenship.

The neocon infested Project for the New American Century (PNAC) renamed itself the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI). 

Its directors and staff include a rogue's gallery of hard-right extremists. They deplore peace. They crave war. On March 1, they issued a statement on Russia's so-called "intervention in Ukraine."

They lied claiming "Putin has violated Ukrainian sovereignty..." Obama 'warned' him, they said. '(T)here will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine,' he said.

FPI rogues want Obama to "lead the world (in) impos(ing) (them) and to ensure his bullying fails."

They demand Putin renege on his promise to protect Crimean Russian nationals.

They want John Kerry and Chuck Hagel to visit Kiev. They want them to "show solidarity" with its neo-Nazi coup d'etat government.

They want bilateral US/Russian discussions suspended unrelated to ongoing events.

They want financial sanctions imposed on Russian officials.

They want NATO member states having the option of abandoning NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 provisions. 

They include prohibiting NATO force deployments in former Warsaw Pact countries. Ten, including former Soviet republics, are NATO member nations.

"It is critical that the United States and the international community make clear to President Putin that his military intervention in Ukraine is unacceptable, and will isolate the Russian government diplomatically, politically and economically," said FPI.  

"Failure to do so will only reward President Putin's indefensible and dangerous actions, and could embolden him to take further actions towards Ukraine and its neighbors."

Obama's administration is infested with FPI type extremists. How he'll respond to events remains to be determined. 

At stake is world peace. Will the damn fool in the White House undermine it further? His track record isn't encouraging.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.


http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Why Should I Care About the Situation in the Ukraine?

By Clark Hay


Why should I care about the situation in the Ukraine? Good question! Glad you asked.
Here’s a quick overview:
Although the Ukraine used to be under the control of Russia, the rather internally divided multi-ethnic country broke away and achieved its tenuous independence in 1990. Since that time there have been 5 president (including today’s interim president Oleksandr Turchynov), and 15 Prime Ministers (including today’s incumbent Arseniy Yatsenyuk).

While a treaty (“The Budapest Memorandum”) signed in 1994 by the US and Britain has a remote chance of pulling the UK and the US into the regional ongoing conflict of the Ukraine, it is doubtful that things would escalate that far without a direct assault on the U.K. or the U.S.

The EU has relied upon 25% of its oil and natural gas coming through the Ukraine – so in many ways it has wanted to tread lightly in that country and has been working towards pulling it into the EU as a partner with many incentives by the IMF which has offered financial assistance in the face of mounting economic woes. Without that oil and gas, Europe will suffer. The problem is, however, the same is true for Russia. If the Ukraine becomes allied with the EU then Russia would become a paying importer of oil rather than an exporter. In addition, the Ukraine is a virtual breadbasket for Russia – with fertile farm lands producing much needed food supplies.

On top of that is the involvement of the international banking cartel (IMF/BIS) and groups working with the CIA to stir up anti-Russian sentiments in the Ukraine and bolster support for the globalists of the E.U.

From 2005 to 2010 Viktor Yushchenko was Ukraine’s pro-EU President who in 1993 was appointed Chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine (Ukraine's central bank), which pleased the globalist central bankers.

Pro Russian Viktor Yanukovych replaced Yushchenko, and he recently rejected a bid by the EU’s IMF to help bail out the country’s flagging economy in favor of a Russian bailout. This pleased Russia, but Yushchenko’s corruption and theft of government money helped sway public opinion against him – assisted by CIA operatives help to stir up anti-Russian sentiments. Over the last week he appears to have fled the country and has been replaced by an interim “president”.

The current interim president is Oleksandr Turchynov, another pro-European pawn in this lethal game of regional chess. The new prime minister of the Ukraine is millionaire and former banker Arseniy Yatsenyuk who is all but in the hip pocket of the IMF and the Central Bankers. So both of the men in charge are pro-European stooges of the Western globalists and that connection is a perceived and likely very real threat to Russia’s interests. Rumors of neo-Nazi affiliations are spreading and may likely be true.

Another Russian interest in the Ukraine is the very strategic Russian naval base in Crimea – a peninsula of the Ukraine in the Black Sea. Anything or anyone who might threaten access to the services rendered by that port would be viewed by Russia as a very real threat! The CIA, and related pro-Western covert forces, have very much been meddling in the Ukraine to stir up anti-Russian sentiments in those areas not so heavily dominated by a Russian populace. Russia, of course, is not taking this lying down and has sent in troops and stationed more along the borders.

But it is more than even that. Russia and China both have different ideas from the Western powers about what constitutes the best globalist vision of a New World Order. Russia and China both believe they should be free to either reign supreme or at least be equal yet independent partners in this Brave New World Order. They really don’t like the idea of yet another form of UN, G20, G8 or even G6 form of global governance, or of being subservient or accountable to anyone else.

The Bible presents a similar picture of the Western EU powers allied with the coming antichrist, having opposition both from a power from far the North (Russia), and a very sizable group allied with the Rulers of the East (China – said to have a standing army of at least 200,000,000 soldiers – which was achieved and exceeded by China many years ago).

Don’t be surprised if all of this further alienates Russia from the Western powers and becomes yet another bone of contention. Also, do not be surprised if it results in a civil war that bleeds into the EU itself – and into other countries via terrorist activities from any and all sides.

War and conflicts and chaos, I must remind you, are a great way to rally the people of every faction to their particular causes and it takes our eyes off who the real criminals are in all of this. Conflicts such as this are a great money making deal for the corporate war machines and investors of both sides of the conflict, it is also a distraction of the masses from all the other ills we face, and it furthers the neo-eugenic program of the űber elite to eliminate more “useless eaters”. A win-win situation for those who have globalist goals of managing the ignorant masses.

Big oil and big money during harsh winters and fragile economies can bring about surprising things. Sabotage seems a popular way to make a point. Economic sanctions have ways of blowing up – sometimes literally. Political divides and animosities generally increase as do socio-economic problems and ethnic violence.

Interconnected economies are perhaps at their most fragile stage right now. A downturn in any area could have a cascading effect – and the same is true of random terrorist or para-military actions or state military actions. And, the return of the cold-war era is always a threat – with Russian vessels already off our coast and docked in Cuba.

The economic and political landscape hinted at in the Bible is one where America is not even mentioned (for whatever reason), Russia and China somewhat oppose the European globalists, and hostilities in the Middle East escalate.

In a world of extremists and globally interconnected volatile/fragile economies with multiple flash points, the events of Crimea and Ukraine become just another trigger for continued global unrest and suffering.

Historically, whenever economies take a serious downturn, unrest conflict and war magically seem to follow. There are many powerful people/corporations/movements who love to meddle and take advantage of such times. A global economic reset/”correction”/collapse is inevitable, so political and civil unrest and regional unrest cannot be far behind.

The “big boys” behind the scenes are already licking their chops – they smell blood in the water and can almost taste the sweet success of bringing their New World Order out of the ensuing chaos. Argentina, Venezuela, Greece, Cyprus, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan (etc.) have merely been trial runs for what is ahead.

In the States it has been even easier for them, no real violence or public protests to worry with – even with their trial run of a complete military shut down (imposition of martial law) in Boston, with door to door searches for just 2 handpicked stooges.

What happens to America in the interim is anybody’s guess.

  • ·         A retreat to protectionism and disengagement from being the world’s policeman?
  • ·         Economic collapse and civil war and martial law?
  • ·         Major terrorist attacks (foreign or domestic) on nuclear facilities or power grids?
  • ·         Major catastrophes like an EMP, or pandemic, or earthquakes, volcanic eruption (as may be the case in Yellowstone)?
  • ·         Or perhaps a total political collapse as states rebel and leaders exposed lose public trust and we fragment into troubled regions? …

Your guess is as good as mine, but I suspect a combination of the above could turn us into a banana republic almost overnight. We seem to have been headed in that direction for some time now.

So, will there be any US military involvement in the Ukraine? … Mmmmm, I doubt it. Maybe an ineffectual presence of NATO or UN troops in the region, and much empty rhetoric and sword rattling, and the drawing meaningless lines in the sand, but actual intervention? I truly doubt it. I think we’re saving up all that conflict for the coup de grâce of a Middle Eastern Armageddon – probably less than a decade down the road.

Between now and then, don’t forget to start stocking up on food and water and necessary supplies, just in case things start unraveling much sooner than most people think. Too many triggers are in the hands of too many sociopaths to think we live in a safe or sane world – we don’t.

Should we care what is happening in the Ukraine? Absolutely! What happens there will have a profound impact of US/EU/Soviet relations – and the chaos there can have dire ripple effects across the board. Don’t think we are immune from the fall out here in the U.S. – we’re not immune at all. 9-11 should have proven that to you, and it looks like chaos and uncertainties and instability will become the new norm for a while – at least until the powers that be divide up their realms and prepare for the coming Armageddon.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Stay alert, informed, prepared, and safe.

Best regards,

Clark

P.S. A variety of news reports and commentaries have been used to piece this little report together. My apologies for not footnoting anything, but I’m sure you can find the sources and quotes with a few quick searches (just like I did). Views expressed here are solely my own and I’ve done my best to vet the sources of this info to the best of my ability.


Legislating Tyranny

Legislating Tyranny

by Stephen Lendman

Police state lawlessness reflects official US policy. Numerous examples explain. Congress opposes fundamental freedoms. 

It terrorizes most people. So do rogue US administrations. Washington is more ruthless today than ever. 

Waging war on humanity is much worse. It's ongoing globally. It's reflected in congressional legislation. 

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF - September 2001) approved open-ended permanent wars. They rage out-of-control. They do so at home and abroad.

The FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) targets freedom. It prioritizes militarism and permanent wars. It authorizes over $600 billion for global belligerence, mass killing and destruction. 

It's a portion of what America spends overall. Around $1.5 trillion or more annually goes for domestic and foreign militarism. 

It's authorized when America's only enemies are ones it invents. It's on top of trillions of dollars of Pentagon waste, fraud and grand theft.

In December 2006, George Bush signed FY 2007 NDAA into law. Included were hidden sections 1076 and 333. Media scoundrels ignored them.

They amended the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. They prohibited using federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement. 

They did so except as constitutionally allowed or expressly authorized by Congress in times of insurrection or other national emergency. 

Presidents can now claim emergency powers. They can declare martial law unilaterally. They can suspend the Constitution.

They can do it on alleged "national security" grounds. They can deploy federal and/or National Guard troops on US streets.

They can do it to suppress whatever is called disorder. It includes lawful peaceful protests. America's First Amendment permits them.

Congress and Bush acted unconstitutionally. They did numerous times throughout Bush's tenure. Things got worse under Obama.

On May 21, 2009, he addressed national security and civil liberties issues. 

He lied saying his "single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe." He's gone all out to harm them. 

He falsely claimed Al Qaeda "is actively planning to attack us again (and) this threat will be with us for a long time..." 

Uncharged detainees pose no threat whatever to America. Obama maliciously claimed otherwise. He offered no evidence proving it. There is none. Innocent victims rot in prison on his say. Others are at risk.

He said those "who cannot be prosecuted" will be held indefinitely without trial. Indefinitely means potentially forever.

Doing so violates America's 8th Amendment. It prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't matter. Core rule of law principles are null and void. Diktat power replaced them.

In December 2011, Obama signed FY 2012 NDAA into law. For the first time in US history, it codified indefinite military detentions. 

It authorized US presidents to order America's military to capture, arrest, and indefinitely detain anyone anywhere in the world. US citizens are as vulnerable as others.

Indefinite detentions remain the law of the land. FY 2013 NDAA reaffirmed them. So did FY 2014 NDAA. 

Detaining people based on uncorroborated suspicions or none at all remains official US policy.

It has strong bipartisan support. It violates core democratic freedoms. They're vanishing in plain sight. Militarized injustice replaced them.

Presidents have unchecked authority. No one anywhere is safe. Abuse of power replaced rule of law protections. Tyranny is official US policy.

Foreign nationals and US citizens are vulnerable. They can be arrested for any reason or none at all. They can be indefinitely detained in military prisons. 

In September 2012, Southern District of New York federal Judge Katherine B. Forrest blocked Obama's indefinite detention law. 

She called it "facially unconstitutional: it impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protections to meet the requirements of due process."

"If, following issuance of this permanent injunctive relief, the government detains individuals under theories of 'substantially or directly supporting' associated forces, as set forth in" NDAA's section 1021, "and a contempt action is brought before this court, the government will bear a heavy burden indeed," she added.

Section 1021 states in part:

"Congress affirms that the authority of the president to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b) ) pending disposition under the law of war."

"Covered persons" are defined as:

Anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

In July 2013, the New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Forrest's ruling. A three-judge panel did so unanimously. 

They endorsed uncharged, untried indefinite detentions. Imprisoning US citizens and foreign nationals based on hearsay or nothing at all remains the law of the land.

FY 2014 NDAA reaffirmed what demands prohibiting. On December 26, Obama signed it into law. It went further than earlier. Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records is authorized.

Doing so establishes new intelligence collecting. It enhances federal power. Indefinite surveillance is authorized.

The defense secretary is empowered to "establish a center to be known as the 'Conflict Records Research Center.' "

It's tasked with compiling "digital research database (information) including translations, and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States."

It'll conduct research and analysis to "increase the understanding of factors related to international relations, counterterrorism, and conventional and unconventional warfare, and ultimately enhance national security."

The defense secretary is authorized to create an information exchange cooperatively with the director of national intelligence (DNI).

Doing so requires involvement of all 16 US intelligence agencies, as well as intelligence related operations. 

Focus is on so-called "captured records." They're defined as "a document, audio file, video file, or other material captured during combat operations from countries, organizations, or individuals, now or once hostile to the United States."

They potentially include telecommunications, emails, text messages, web sites visited, medical history, financial records, and related information.

Ordinary information can be maliciously manipulated. It can be held against us. Potentially it becomes incriminating evidence. 

It does if prosecutors say so. They're experts at creating indictments out of whole cloth. Truth or fiction doesn't matter.

Freedom is too precious to lose. More than ever it hangs by a thread. Constitutional protections don't help.

Alleged hostility is undefined. It's whatever Washington so designates. It includes nations, organizations and individuals. Anyone for any reason or none at all becomes a potential hostile entity.

FY 2014 NDAA sustains America's war on terror. It continues waging war on humanity. It jeopardizes everyone everywhere. It gives presidents more diktat power.

It further compromises fundamental freedoms. It makes everyone potential enemies. It pronounces guilt by accusation. It turns planet earth into a battleground. It does so unconstitutionally.

On January 29, 1788, James Madison commented in The Federalist No. 46 (The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared).

He said the way to combat federal overreach is by refusing "to cooperate with officers of the Union."

Resisting tyranny is a longstanding US tradition. Jefferson called doing so "obedience to God."

John Locke said when governments fail people their "trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the Power (shall) devolve into the hands of those that gave it…"

America's Declaration of Independence affirmed abolishing governments abusing their just powers derived from the consent of the governed.

Civil disobedience more than ever is essential. Henry David Thoreau affirmed "the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.

America today is more unjust than ever in modern times. Arguably it Resistance is a national imperative. The alternative is full-blown tyranny. It's what no one should accept anywhere anytime.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour


http://www.dailycensored.com/legislating-tyranny/

Lock and Load: Are You Prepared for Civil Unrest?

civil-300x213

Do you get the feeling that we are right on the verge of chaos?  With the government shutdown, the congressional budget deadline of the 17th, the EBT system under threat, and assorted “drills” that, if history proves to be any guide, could be a loose cover for an upcoming false flag, we could be looking at civil unrest in a matter of days.

These are all situations that we, as individuals, have little control over.

What we CAN control is our response to a crisis.

By planning ahead, we can avoid the fear, panic, and confusion that leads people to rush to the store and clear the shelves like a horde of hungry locusts.  We can stay away from the angry masses, the rioters who will use any excuse to steal, and the hungry people who are determined to feed their kids no matter who stands in their way.

Whether the next few weeks lead to pandemonium due to the welfare strings being cut or some type of martial law, a prepared mindset, a defense plan, and a well-stocked home can help to keep you and your family out of harm’s way.

In her article Anatomy of a Breakdown, Tess Pennington wrote:

“When you take the time to understand how a breakdown behaves and how it progresses, only then can you truly prepare for it.

This glimpse into a systemic breakdown is based on an isolated, limited disaster or event where emergency responders have been deployed. I must emphasize that all bets are off if the event is wide spread, affecting multiple tens of millions of people simultaneously.”

Here are the most vital things that you can do to be prepared for civil unrest.

Get home

In a perfect world, we’d all be home, watching the chaos erupt on TV from the safety of our living rooms.  However, reality says that some of us will be at the store, at school, or in the car when unrest occurs.  You need to develop a “get-home” plan for all of the members of your family, based on the most likely places that they will be.

Devise an efficient route for picking up the kids from school.  Be sure that anyone who might be picking up the children already has permission to do so in the school office.

Discuss the plan with older kids – there have been rumors that children could be moved by the schools to a secondary location in the event of a crisis.  Some families have formulated plans for their older kids to leave the school grounds in such an instance and take a designated route home or to another meeting place.

Keep a get-home bag in the trunk of your car in case you have to set out on foot.

Stash some supplies in the bottom of your child’s backpack – water, a snack, any tools that might be useful, and a map.  Be sure your children understand the importance of OPSEC.

Find multiple routes home – map out alternative backroad ways to get home as well as directions if you must go home on foot.

Find hiding places along the way.  If you work or go to school a substantial distance from your home, figure out some places to lay low now, before a crisis situation.  Sometimes staying out of sight is the best way to stay safe.

Avoid groups of people.  It seems that the mob mentality strikes when large groups of people get together.  Often folks who would never ordinarily riot in the streets get swept up by the mass of people who are doing so.

Keep in mind that in many civil disorder situations the authorities are to be avoided every bit as diligently as the angry mobs of looters. Who can forget the scenes of innocent people being pepper sprayed by uniformed thugs in body armor just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Stay home

Once you make your way home or to your bug-out location …. STAY THERE.

By staying home, you are minimizing your risk of being caught in the midst of an angry mob or of sitting in stalled traffic while looters run amok.  In most scenarios you will be far safer at home than you will be in any type of shelter or refuge situation. (Obviously if there is some type of chemical or natural threat in your immediate neighborhood, like a toxic leak, a flood, or a forest fire, the whole situation changes – you must use common sense before hunkering down.)

This is when your preparedness supplies will really pay off. If you are ready for minor medical emergencies and illnesses, a grid down scenario, and a no-comm situation, you will be able to stay safely at home with your family and ride out the crisis in moderate comfort.

Be sure you have a supply of the following:

  • Water
  • Necessary prescription medications
  • Food and an off grid way to cook it
  • Or food that requires no cooking
  • First aid supplies
  • Lighting in the event of a power outage
  • Sanitation supplies (in the event that the municipal water system is unusuable, this would include cleaning supplies and toilet supplies)
  • A way to stay warm in harsh winter weather
  • Over-the-counter medications and/or herbal remedies to treat illnesses at home
  • Survival and first aid manuals (hard copies in case the internet and power grid are down)
  • Alternative communications devices (such as a hand-crank radio) so that you can get updates about the outside world
  • Off-grid entertainment:  arts and craft supplies, puzzles, games, books, crossword or word search puzzles, needlework, journals

Be prepared to defend your home

Sometimes despite our best intentions, the fight comes to us.  Even though we stay home, something about our place draws the attention of an unsavory person or group.  Defense is two-fold.  Your best defense is avoiding the fight altogether. You want to stay under the radar and not draw attention to yourself.  The extent to which you strive to do this should be based on the severity of the unrest in your area. Some of the following recommendations are not necessary in an everyday grid-down scenario, but could save your life in a more extreme civil unrest scenario.

Keep all the doors and windows locked.  Secure sliding doors with a metal bar.  Consider installing decorative gridwork over a door with a large window so that it becomes difficult for someone to smash the glass and reach in to unlock the door.

Put dark plastic over the windows. (Heavy duty garbage bags work well.)  If it’s safe to do so, go outside and check to see if any light escapes from the windows. If your home is the only one on the block that is well-lit, it is a beacon to others.

Don’t answer the door.  Many home invasions start with an innocent-seeming knock at the door to gain access to your house.

Keep cooking smells to a minimum.  If everyone else in the neighborhood is hungry, the meat on your grill will draw people like moths to a flame.

Remember that first responders may be tied up.  If the disorder is widespread, don’t depend on a call to 911 to save you – you must be prepared to save yourself.  Also keep in mind, as mentioned earlier in the article – the cops are not always your friends in these situations.

If, despite your best efforts, your property draws the attention of people with ill intent, you must be ready to defend your family.

Many preppers stockpile weapons and ammunition for just such an event.  When the door of your home is breached, you can be pretty sure the people coming in are not there to make friendly conversation.  Make a plan to greet them with a deterring amount of force.

Have a safe room established for children or other vulnerable family members.

Plan an escape route.  If the odds are against you, devise a way to get your family to safety.

*****

Every civil unrest scenario is different.  You must make a personal plan based on your environment, your neighbors, and the type of situation that triggered the unrest.  By thinking ahead, you’ve already increased your family’s chances at surviving unscathed.


Please feel free to share any pat of this article in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to The Organic Prepper website and the following bio.

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at [email protected]

Lock and Load: Are You Prepared for Civil Unrest?

civil-300x213

Do you get the feeling that we are right on the verge of chaos?  With the government shutdown, the congressional budget deadline of the 17th, the EBT system under threat, and assorted “drills” that, if history proves to be any guide, could be a loose cover for an upcoming false flag, we could be looking at civil unrest in a matter of days.

These are all situations that we, as individuals, have little control over.

What we CAN control is our response to a crisis.

By planning ahead, we can avoid the fear, panic, and confusion that leads people to rush to the store and clear the shelves like a horde of hungry locusts.  We can stay away from the angry masses, the rioters who will use any excuse to steal, and the hungry people who are determined to feed their kids no matter who stands in their way.

Whether the next few weeks lead to pandemonium due to the welfare strings being cut or some type of martial law, a prepared mindset, a defense plan, and a well-stocked home can help to keep you and your family out of harm’s way.

In her article Anatomy of a Breakdown, Tess Pennington wrote:

“When you take the time to understand how a breakdown behaves and how it progresses, only then can you truly prepare for it.

This glimpse into a systemic breakdown is based on an isolated, limited disaster or event where emergency responders have been deployed. I must emphasize that all bets are off if the event is wide spread, affecting multiple tens of millions of people simultaneously.”

Here are the most vital things that you can do to be prepared for civil unrest.

Get home

In a perfect world, we’d all be home, watching the chaos erupt on TV from the safety of our living rooms.  However, reality says that some of us will be at the store, at school, or in the car when unrest occurs.  You need to develop a “get-home” plan for all of the members of your family, based on the most likely places that they will be.

Devise an efficient route for picking up the kids from school.  Be sure that anyone who might be picking up the children already has permission to do so in the school office.

Discuss the plan with older kids – there have been rumors that children could be moved by the schools to a secondary location in the event of a crisis.  Some families have formulated plans for their older kids to leave the school grounds in such an instance and take a designated route home or to another meeting place.

Keep a get-home bag in the trunk of your car in case you have to set out on foot.

Stash some supplies in the bottom of your child’s backpack – water, a snack, any tools that might be useful, and a map.  Be sure your children understand the importance of OPSEC.

Find multiple routes home – map out alternative backroad ways to get home as well as directions if you must go home on foot.

Find hiding places along the way.  If you work or go to school a substantial distance from your home, figure out some places to lay low now, before a crisis situation.  Sometimes staying out of sight is the best way to stay safe.

Avoid groups of people.  It seems that the mob mentality strikes when large groups of people get together.  Often folks who would never ordinarily riot in the streets get swept up by the mass of people who are doing so.

Keep in mind that in many civil disorder situations the authorities are to be avoided every bit as diligently as the angry mobs of looters. Who can forget the scenes of innocent people being pepper sprayed by uniformed thugs in body armor just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Stay home

Once you make your way home or to your bug-out location …. STAY THERE.

By staying home, you are minimizing your risk of being caught in the midst of an angry mob or of sitting in stalled traffic while looters run amok.  In most scenarios you will be far safer at home than you will be in any type of shelter or refuge situation. (Obviously if there is some type of chemical or natural threat in your immediate neighborhood, like a toxic leak, a flood, or a forest fire, the whole situation changes – you must use common sense before hunkering down.)

This is when your preparedness supplies will really pay off. If you are ready for minor medical emergencies and illnesses, a grid down scenario, and a no-comm situation, you will be able to stay safely at home with your family and ride out the crisis in moderate comfort.

Be sure you have a supply of the following:

  • Water
  • Necessary prescription medications
  • Food and an off grid way to cook it
  • Or food that requires no cooking
  • First aid supplies
  • Lighting in the event of a power outage
  • Sanitation supplies (in the event that the municipal water system is unusuable, this would include cleaning supplies and toilet supplies)
  • A way to stay warm in harsh winter weather
  • Over-the-counter medications and/or herbal remedies to treat illnesses at home
  • Survival and first aid manuals (hard copies in case the internet and power grid are down)
  • Alternative communications devices (such as a hand-crank radio) so that you can get updates about the outside world
  • Off-grid entertainment:  arts and craft supplies, puzzles, games, books, crossword or word search puzzles, needlework, journals

Be prepared to defend your home

Sometimes despite our best intentions, the fight comes to us.  Even though we stay home, something about our place draws the attention of an unsavory person or group.  Defense is two-fold.  Your best defense is avoiding the fight altogether. You want to stay under the radar and not draw attention to yourself.  The extent to which you strive to do this should be based on the severity of the unrest in your area. Some of the following recommendations are not necessary in an everyday grid-down scenario, but could save your life in a more extreme civil unrest scenario.

Keep all the doors and windows locked.  Secure sliding doors with a metal bar.  Consider installing decorative gridwork over a door with a large window so that it becomes difficult for someone to smash the glass and reach in to unlock the door.

Put dark plastic over the windows. (Heavy duty garbage bags work well.)  If it’s safe to do so, go outside and check to see if any light escapes from the windows. If your home is the only one on the block that is well-lit, it is a beacon to others.

Don’t answer the door.  Many home invasions start with an innocent-seeming knock at the door to gain access to your house.

Keep cooking smells to a minimum.  If everyone else in the neighborhood is hungry, the meat on your grill will draw people like moths to a flame.

Remember that first responders may be tied up.  If the disorder is widespread, don’t depend on a call to 911 to save you – you must be prepared to save yourself.  Also keep in mind, as mentioned earlier in the article – the cops are not always your friends in these situations.

If, despite your best efforts, your property draws the attention of people with ill intent, you must be ready to defend your family.

Many preppers stockpile weapons and ammunition for just such an event.  When the door of your home is breached, you can be pretty sure the people coming in are not there to make friendly conversation.  Make a plan to greet them with a deterring amount of force.

Have a safe room established for children or other vulnerable family members.

Plan an escape route.  If the odds are against you, devise a way to get your family to safety.

*****

Every civil unrest scenario is different.  You must make a personal plan based on your environment, your neighbors, and the type of situation that triggered the unrest.  By thinking ahead, you’ve already increased your family’s chances at surviving unscathed.


Please feel free to share any pat of this article in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to The Organic Prepper website and the following bio.

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at [email protected]

LOCK DOWN: Your Cash Is No Longer Your Own: “Everything Is Fine”

“Economic martial law will be declared… restrictions will be set on the amounts, times and frequency of withdrawals.”
Forecaster Gerald Celente
Trends Journal – Summer 2011

redflagdanger

We hope you’re paying attention.

If there were ever a red flag warning about the economic and financial destruction to come, JP Morgan Chase Bank began flying it this morning.

In a shocking report from Infowars we learned that mega-behemoth Chase has issued letters to thousands of business customers indicating that they will no longer be allowing international wire transfers or cash deposits/withdrawals in excess of a $50,000 monthly cap.

Chase Bank confirmed to Infowars that all business account holders were being subjected to these new regulations. Given that even a relatively small grocery store or restaurant is likely to turnover more than $50k a month in cash payments, this appears to be part of a wider move to shut down businesses who mainly deal in cash.

When Mike Adams of Natural News received the same letter he contacted Chase Bank and was able to confirm the new policies.

According to Chase, “everything is fine,” and customers need not worry.

Their response was that these changes were being implemented “to better serve our customers.” They did not explain how blocking all international wire transfers would “better serve” their customers, however.

Chase Bank specifically denied any knowledge of problems with cash on hand, or government debt or any such issue. They basically downplayed the entire issue and had no answers for why capital controls were suddenly being put into place.

This is nothing short of a capital control, which is an economic strategy designed to limit the transfer of money. It is a strategy implemented only during times of economic or financial distress, most often as a precursor to wealth seizures by the state.

Be warned, Chase bank is the first of likely many banks to begin the lock-down of the financial wealth of private individuals in the United States of America.

The new restrictions are particularly ironic because JP Morgan Chase (along with other large banking conglomerates) is a primary shareholder, and thus owner, of the Federal Reserve, which has been responsible for sending trillions of freshly printed dollars outside of the country over the last several years.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for why one of the world’s biggest banks just restricted the outward flow of cash from domestic businesses to their international contacts, especially considering that we are repeatedly told we live in a globalized world where we need to learn to work with our foreign partners.

It makes no sense.

Unless, of course, you stop to consider that the United States is and has been on the brink of collapse, literally, for nearly a decade. This was first confirmed in January of 2011 in a letter to Congress by then Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner when he spoke of the U.S. debt ceiling.

Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades.

Most recently, the U.S. Treasury Department reiterated the seriousness of any misstep in our trillion-dollar debt spending:

In the event that a debt limit impasse were to lead to a default, it could have a catastrophic effect on not just financial markets but also on job creation, consumer spending and economic growth

Think about the recent USDA letter to state food stamp directors, in which they noted that lack of funding would lead to a complete freeze on Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program distributions to millions of people. Within 24 hours of such a move the entire country from coast-to-coast would be awash in rioting, looting and violence.

This is how close we are.

As we noted, Congress and the President “saved” us yet again in the 11th hour. But we are only pushing out the timeline on the inevitable.

The government knows this – as evidenced by the warnings of the Treasury Department.

The mega-banks know this as well.

And several years ago trend forecaster Gerald Celente warned that this is exactly how it would happen and it would come on the heels of a rogue terror attack that may involve direct targeting of the U.S. populace through violence, or cyber attacks that attack our banking system or take down the U.S. power grid:

Bank holidays will be called, the US and other fragile economies will crumble, gold and silver will soar, and already-troubled currencies will crash. Economic martial law will be declared. Introduced as a temporary measure, once in place it will remain in place (like the curfews and draconian security precautions installed by despots and dictators everywhere). Civil rights will be suspended and, particularly in America, Homeland Security, already intolerably intrusive, will achieve an Orwellian omnipresence.

With banks closed and economic martial law in place, restrictions will be set on the amounts, times and frequency of withdrawals. As we have cautioned before, it will be essential to have a stash of cash on hand. Even though governments will devalue their currencies, it will happen in stages.

Piece by piece, day by day, intrusion after intrusion, the end game should be coming into focus.

Take the following warning from Mike Adams seriously because ignoring it will have severe consequences for you and yours.

This is happening, folks! The capital controls begin on November 17th. The bank runs may follow soon thereafter. Chase Bank is now admitting that you cannot use your own money that you’ve deposited there.

This is clearly stemming from a government policy that is requiring banks to prevent cash from leaving the United States. Such policies are only put into place when a huge financial default event is expected.

It may not happen tomorrow, or next month, or next year. But the consumer paradigm in which we live, the relative peace and stability we experience… it will all come crashing down.

The time to insulate yourself is right here and now.

They are preparing for what they know is coming.

You should be too.

LOCK DOWN: Your Cash Is No Longer Your Own: “Everything Is Fine”

“Economic martial law will be declared… restrictions will be set on the amounts, times and frequency of withdrawals.”
Forecaster Gerald Celente
Trends Journal – Summer 2011

redflagdanger

We hope you’re paying attention.

If there were ever a red flag warning about the economic and financial destruction to come, JP Morgan Chase Bank began flying it this morning.

In a shocking report from Infowars we learned that mega-behemoth Chase has issued letters to thousands of business customers indicating that they will no longer be allowing international wire transfers or cash deposits/withdrawals in excess of a $50,000 monthly cap.

Chase Bank confirmed to Infowars that all business account holders were being subjected to these new regulations. Given that even a relatively small grocery store or restaurant is likely to turnover more than $50k a month in cash payments, this appears to be part of a wider move to shut down businesses who mainly deal in cash.

When Mike Adams of Natural News received the same letter he contacted Chase Bank and was able to confirm the new policies.

According to Chase, “everything is fine,” and customers need not worry.

Their response was that these changes were being implemented “to better serve our customers.” They did not explain how blocking all international wire transfers would “better serve” their customers, however.

Chase Bank specifically denied any knowledge of problems with cash on hand, or government debt or any such issue. They basically downplayed the entire issue and had no answers for why capital controls were suddenly being put into place.

This is nothing short of a capital control, which is an economic strategy designed to limit the transfer of money. It is a strategy implemented only during times of economic or financial distress, most often as a precursor to wealth seizures by the state.

Be warned, Chase bank is the first of likely many banks to begin the lock-down of the financial wealth of private individuals in the United States of America.

The new restrictions are particularly ironic because JP Morgan Chase (along with other large banking conglomerates) is a primary shareholder, and thus owner, of the Federal Reserve, which has been responsible for sending trillions of freshly printed dollars outside of the country over the last several years.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for why one of the world’s biggest banks just restricted the outward flow of cash from domestic businesses to their international contacts, especially considering that we are repeatedly told we live in a globalized world where we need to learn to work with our foreign partners.

It makes no sense.

Unless, of course, you stop to consider that the United States is and has been on the brink of collapse, literally, for nearly a decade. This was first confirmed in January of 2011 in a letter to Congress by then Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner when he spoke of the U.S. debt ceiling.

Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades.

Most recently, the U.S. Treasury Department reiterated the seriousness of any misstep in our trillion-dollar debt spending:

In the event that a debt limit impasse were to lead to a default, it could have a catastrophic effect on not just financial markets but also on job creation, consumer spending and economic growth

Think about the recent USDA letter to state food stamp directors, in which they noted that lack of funding would lead to a complete freeze on Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program distributions to millions of people. Within 24 hours of such a move the entire country from coast-to-coast would be awash in rioting, looting and violence.

This is how close we are.

As we noted, Congress and the President “saved” us yet again in the 11th hour. But we are only pushing out the timeline on the inevitable.

The government knows this – as evidenced by the warnings of the Treasury Department.

The mega-banks know this as well.

And several years ago trend forecaster Gerald Celente warned that this is exactly how it would happen and it would come on the heels of a rogue terror attack that may involve direct targeting of the U.S. populace through violence, or cyber attacks that attack our banking system or take down the U.S. power grid:

Bank holidays will be called, the US and other fragile economies will crumble, gold and silver will soar, and already-troubled currencies will crash. Economic martial law will be declared. Introduced as a temporary measure, once in place it will remain in place (like the curfews and draconian security precautions installed by despots and dictators everywhere). Civil rights will be suspended and, particularly in America, Homeland Security, already intolerably intrusive, will achieve an Orwellian omnipresence.

With banks closed and economic martial law in place, restrictions will be set on the amounts, times and frequency of withdrawals. As we have cautioned before, it will be essential to have a stash of cash on hand. Even though governments will devalue their currencies, it will happen in stages.

Piece by piece, day by day, intrusion after intrusion, the end game should be coming into focus.

Take the following warning from Mike Adams seriously because ignoring it will have severe consequences for you and yours.

This is happening, folks! The capital controls begin on November 17th. The bank runs may follow soon thereafter. Chase Bank is now admitting that you cannot use your own money that you’ve deposited there.

This is clearly stemming from a government policy that is requiring banks to prevent cash from leaving the United States. Such policies are only put into place when a huge financial default event is expected.

It may not happen tomorrow, or next month, or next year. But the consumer paradigm in which we live, the relative peace and stability we experience… it will all come crashing down.

The time to insulate yourself is right here and now.

They are preparing for what they know is coming.

You should be too.

Is Homeland Security Preparing for the Next Wall Street Collapse?

Reports are that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is engaged in a massive, covert military buildup. An article in the Associated Press in February confirmed an open purchase order by DHS for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. According to an op-ed in Forbes, that’s enough to sustain an Iraq-sized war for over twenty years. DHS has also acquired heavily armored tanks, which have been seen roaming the streets. Evidently somebody in government is expecting some serious civil unrest. The question is, why?

Recently revealed statements by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the height of the banking crisis in October 2008 could give some insights into that question. An article on BBC News on September 21, 2013, drew from an explosive autobiography called Power Trip by Brown’s spin doctor Damian McBride, who said the prime minister was worried that law and order could collapse during the financial crisis. McBride quoted Brown as saying:

If the banks are shutting their doors, and the cash points aren’t working, and people go to Tesco [a grocery chain] and their cards aren’t being accepted, the whole thing will just explode.

If you can’t buy food or petrol or medicine for your kids, people will just start breaking the windows and helping themselves.

And as soon as people see that on TV, that’s the end, because everyone will think that’s OK now, that’s just what we all have to do. It’ll be anarchy. That’s what could happen tomorrow.

How to deal with that threat? Brown said, “We’d have to think: do we have curfews, do we put the Army on the streets, how do we get order back?”

McBride wrote in his book Power Trip, “It was extraordinary to see Gordon so totally gripped by the danger of what he was about to do, but equally convinced that decisive action had to be taken immediately.” He compared the threat to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Fear of this threat was echoed in September 2008 by US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who reportedly warned that the US government might have to resort to martial law if Wall Street were not bailed out from the credit collapse.

In both countries, martial law was avoided when their legislatures succumbed to pressure and bailed out the banks. But many pundits are saying that another collapse is imminent; and this time, governments may not be so willing to step up to the plate.

The Next Time WILL Be Different

What triggered the 2008 crisis was a run, not in the conventional banking system, but in the “shadow” banking system, a collection of non-bank financial intermediaries that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks but are unregulated.  They include hedge funds, money market funds, credit investment funds, exchange-traded funds, private equity funds, securities broker dealers, securitization and finance companies. Investment banks and commercial banks may also conduct much of their business in the shadows of this unregulated system.

The shadow financial casino has only grown larger since 2008; and in the next Lehman-style collapse, government bailouts may not be available. According to President Obama in his remarks on the Dodd-Frank Act on July 15, 2010, “Because of this reform, . . . there will be no more taxpayer funded bailouts – period.”

Governments in Europe are also shying away from further bailouts. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) in Switzerland has therefore required the systemically risky banks to devise “living wills” setting forth what they will do in the event of insolvency. The template established by the FSB requires them to “bail in” their creditors; and depositors, it turns out, are the largest class of bank creditor. (For fuller discussion, see my earlier article here.)

When depositors cannot access their bank accounts to get money for food for the kids, they could well start breaking store windows and helping themselves. Worse, they might plot to overthrow the financier-controlled government. Witness Greece, where increasing disillusionment with the ability of the government to rescue the citizens from the worst depression since 1929 has precipitated riots and threats of violent overthrow.

Fear of that result could explain the massive, government-authorized spying on American citizens, the domestic use of drones, and the elimination of due process and of “posse comitatus” (the federal law prohibiting the military from enforcing “law and order” on non-federal property). Constitutional protections are being thrown out the window in favor of protecting the elite class in power.

The Looming Debt Ceiling Crisis

The next crisis on the agenda appears to be the October 17th deadline for agreeing on a federal budget or risking default on the government’s loans. It may only be a coincidence, but two large-scale drills are scheduled to take place the same day, the “Great ShakeOut Earthquake Drill” and the “Quantum Dawn 2 Cyber Attack Bank Drill.” According to a Bloomberg news clip on the bank drill, the attacks being prepared for are from hackers, state-sponsored espionage, and organized crime (financial fraud). One interviewee stated, “You might experience that your online banking is down . . . . You might experience that you can’t log in.” It sounds like a dress rehearsal for the Great American Bail-in.

Ominous as all this is, it has a bright side. Bail-ins and martial law can be seen as the last desperate thrashings of a dinosaur. The exploitative financial scheme responsible for turning millions out of their jobs and their homes has reached the end of the line. Crisis in the current scheme means opportunity for those more sustainable solutions waiting in the wings.

Other countries faced with a collapse in their debt-based borrowed currencies have survived and thrived by issuing their own. When the dollar-pegged currency collapsed in Argentina in 2001, the national government returned to issuing its own pesos; municipal governments paid with “debt-canceling bonds” that circulated as currency; and neighborhoods traded with community currencies. After the German currency collapsed in the 1920s, the government turned the economy around in the 1930s by issuing “MEFO” bills that circulated as currency. When England ran out of gold in 1914, the government issued “Bradbury pounds” similar to the Greenbacks issued by Abraham Lincoln during the US Civil War.

Today our government could avoid the debt ceiling crisis by doing something similar: it could simply mint some trillion dollar coins and deposit them in an account. That alternative could be pursued by the Administration immediately, without going to Congress or changing the law, as discussed in my earlier article here. It need not be inflationary, since Congress could still spend only what it passed in its budget. And if Congress did expand its budget for infrastructure and job creation, that would actually be good for the economy, since hoarding cash and paying down loans have significantly shrunk the circulating money supply.

 Peer-to-peer Trading and Public Banks

At the local level, we need to set up an alternative system that provides safety for depositors, funds small and medium-sized businesses, and serves the needs of the community.

Much progress has already been made on that front in the peer-to-peer economy.  In a September 27th article titled “Peer-to-Peer Economy Thrives as Activists Vacate the System,” Eric Blair reports that the Occupy Movement is engaged in a peaceful revolution in which people are abandoning the established system in favor of a “sharing economy.” Trading occurs between individuals, without taxes, regulations or licenses, and in some cases without government-issued currency.

Peer-to-peer trading happens largely on the Internet, where customer reviews rather than regulation keep sellers honest. It started with eBay and Craigslist and has grown exponentially since. Bitcoin is a private currency outside the prying eyes of regulators. Software is being devised that circumvents NSA spying. Bank loans are being shunned in favor of crowdfunding. Local food co-ops are also a form of opting out of the corporate-government system.

Peer-to-peer trading works for local exchange, but we also need a way to protect our dollars, both public and private. We need dollars to pay at least some of our bills, and businesses need them to acquire raw materials. We also need a way to protect our public revenues, which are currently deposited and invested in Wall Street banks that have heavy derivatives exposure.

To meet those needs, we can set up publicly-owned banks on the model of the Bank of North Dakota, currently our only state-owned depository bank. The BND is mandated by law to receive all the state’s deposits and to serve the public interest. Ideally, every state would have one of these “mini-Feds.” Counties and cities could have them as well. For more information, see http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

Preparations for martial law have been reported for decades, and it hasn’t happened yet. Hopefully, we can sidestep that danger by moving into a saner, more sustainable system that makes military action against American citizens unnecessary.

______________

Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 200-plus blog articles are at EllenBrown.com.

 

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed under: Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary

The Real Iran Hostage Crisis: A CIA Covert Op

iranflag

Global Research Editor’s Note

The script of Best Film Academy Award Movie  “Argo” which depicts the Iran Hostage Crisis is largely based on fiction.

The purpose of the film is to rewrite history, to falsify what actually happened as well as provide a human face to US foreign  policy.

Amply documented, the Iran Hostage Crisis was a complex CIA covert operation intent upon stalling the Iranian Revolution as well as spearheading the political demise of President Jimmy Carter.

The following article first published in 1995 is based on extensive documentation collected by Fara Mansoor, a prominent Iranian intellectual.

Michel  Chossudovsky, February 26, 2013


By Harry V. Martin

Free America, 1995

Fara Mansoor is a fugitive. No, he hasn’t broken any laws in the United States. His crime is the truth. What he has to say and the documents he carries are equivalent to a death warrant for him, Mansoor is an Iranian who was part of the “establishment” in Iran long before the 1979 hostage taking. Mansoor’s records actually discount the alleged “October Surprise” theory that the Ronald Reagan-George Bush team paid the Iranians not to release 52 American hostages until after the November 1980 Presidential elections.

Mansoor’s meticulous documents, shared exclusively with this magazine, shows a much more sinister plot, the plot to take the hostages in the first place. “For 15 years the truth about the nature and origins of the Iranian hostage crisis has been buried in a mountain of misinformation,” Mansoor states. “Endless expert analysis has served only to deepen the fog that still surrounds this issue. We have been led to believe that the ‘crisis’ was a spontaneous act that just sprang out of the ‘chaos’ of the ‘Islamic Revolution’. Nothing could be further from the truth!”

“To really understand the hostage crisis and ‘who done it’, one has to look not only with a microscope, but also a wide angle lens to have a panoramic view of this well scripted ‘drama’,” Mansoor states. “That ‘drama’ was the result of large historical patterns, models, and motives. Once its true nature is understood, it will be clear how Iran/Contra happened.

Why Rafsanjani has been trying to ‘move toward the West,’ and why Reagan called him a ‘moderate’. And why, during the Gulf War, James Baker said, ‘we think Iran has conducted itself in a very, very credible way through this crisis’” Mansoor emphasizes that the “October Surprise” myth has served as dangerous misinformation.

THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT

With thousands of documents to support his position, Mansoor says that the “hostage crisis” was a political “management tool” created by the pro-Bush faction of the CIA, and implemented through an a priori Alliance with Khomeini’s Islamic Fundamentalists.” He says the purpose was twofold:

  • To keep Iran intact and communist-free by putting Khomeini in full control.
  • To destablize the Carter Administration and put George Bush in the White House.

“The private Alliance was the logical result of the intricate Iranian political reality of the mid-70s, and a complex network of powerful U.S.-Iranian ‘business’ relationships,” Mansoor states. “I first met Khomeini in 1963 during the failed coup attempt against the Shah. Since that time I have been intimately involved with Iranian politics. I knew in 1979 that the whole, phoney ‘Islamic Revolution’ was ‘mission implausible’.” Mansoor was frank. “There is simply no way that those guys with the beards and turbans could have pulled off such a brilliantly planned operation without very sophisticated help.”

Mansoor has spent 10 years researching the issue.

“I have collected enough data to yield a very clear picture. Mr. Bush’s lieutenants removed the Shah, brought Khomeini back to Iran, and guided his rise to power, sticking it to President Carter, the American people (52 in particular), and the Iranian people.”

He stated with boxes and boxes of evidence to support his contentions.

“My extensive research has revealed the heretofore untold truth about this episode. This is not another ‘October Surprise’ theory purporting how the hostage crisis resulted in some Khomeini-Republic better deal. That theory puts the cart before the horse. Its absurd premise is that a major international deal was initiated and consummated in three weeks. Give me a break! Bill Casey didn’t have to go to Paris to play lets-make-deal. The ‘deal’ had been in operation for at least two years. This game of blind-man’s-bluff around Casey’s gravestone was more disinformation, damage control.”

REAGAN, BUSH AND THATCHER IN IRAN IN 1978

Mansoor produced a confidential document called the “Country Team Minutes” of April 26, 1978, more than a year before the hostage crisis. The meeting was held in Iran. The second paragraph of the routine minutes, states, “The Ambassador commented on our distinguished visitors, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Margaret Thatcher, and commented that Teheran seems to be the site for an opposition parties congress.” Mansoor indicates the entire relationship was probably the most sophisticated criminal act in recent history. “That the people who, until recently, were holding power in Washington and those who currently are still in control in Teheran, got there by totally subverting the democratic process of both countries is news. That their methods of subversion relied on kidnapping, extortion and murder is criminal,” Mansoor states.

Mansoor became a target after he did a radio show in Portland on November 13, 1992. It was the first time he attempted to go public with his documents and information. The Iranian regime has placed a bounty on Mansoor’s head and he has received many death threats.

Is Mansoor just another conspiracy nut? Ervand Abrahamian of Baruch College of New York stated in a letter to Mansoor,

“As you know I am very weary of conspiracy theories. But, despite my preconceived bias, I must admit I found your manuscript to be thoroughly researched, well documented, and, of course extremely relevant to the present. You have done an first-class job of interviewing participants, collecting data from scattered sources, and putting them together like a highly complicated puzzle.”

Mansoor’s meticulous research clearly demonstrates how Khomeini’s published vision of an Islamic Government (Vilayat-Faqih) dovetailed with the regional and global strategic objectives of a hard-core subset of the U.S. National Security establishment loyal to George Bush. It shows that the Iranian hostage crisis was neither a crisis nor chaos. In 1953, the CIA orchestrated a coup in Iran, which threw out the democratic government and installed the Shah.

In order to understand the imperative of this Alliance, we must realistically examine the sociopolitical alignment both in Iran and the U.S., and accurately assess their respective interests to find the command ground for this coalescence. The anti-monarchic forces in mid-70s Iran consisted of various nationalists groups including religious reformist, the Islamic Fundamentalists, and the leftists and communist.

The Nationalist forces were varied. Some were from within the government, but they were poorly organized and without grass-roots support. Their position was clearly anti-left and anti-communist, but they were vulnerable to being taken over by the well-organized left.

The Islamic Fundamentalists had no government experience, but they had major grassroots supports. Islam, in its Shi’ite format was deeply embedded in the lives of the vast majority of the Iranian people. The Fundamentalists were absolutely anti-communist.

CARTER FIRES 800 CIA COVERT OPERATORS

The philosophical divide within the U.S. National Security establishment, especially the CIA, became quite serious in the aftermath of Watergate. To make matters worse, the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, his campaign promise to clean the “cowboy” elements out of the Central Intelligence Agency and his “human rights” policies alarmed the faction of the CIA loyal to George Bush. Bush was CIA director under Richard Nixon. Finally, the firing of CIA Director George Bush by Carter, and the subsequent “Halloween Massacre” in which Carter fired over 800 CIA covert operatives in 1977, angered the “cowboys” beyond all measure. That was Carter’s October surprise, 800 firings on Halloween 1977.

Bush and his CIA coverts were well aware of the Shah’s terminal cancer, unknown to President Carter. The team had an elaborate vested interest to protect. They were determined to keep Iran intact and communist-free and put George Bush in the White House.

TIMELINE: SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Hence, the Islamic Fundamentalists were the only viable choice through which the Bush covert team could implement its own private foreign policy. The results: the birth of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the fall of President Carter, and the emergence of something called the “New World Order.” Mansoor’s documents show step-by-step events:

1. In 1974, the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer.

2. In 1975, former CIA director, and the U.S. Ambassador to Iran, Richard Helms learned of the Shah’s cancer through the Shah’s closest confidant, General Hossein Fardoust. The Shah, Helms and Fardoust had been close personal friends since their school days together in Switzerland during the 1930s.

3. On November 4, 1976, concurrent with Jimmy Carter’s election as President, CIA Director George Bush issued a secret memo to the U.S. Ambassador in Iran, Richard Helms, asking:

“Have there been any changes in the personality pattern of the Shah; what are their implication pattern for political behavior? Identification of top military officers that most likely play key roles in any transference of power if the Shah were killed…who will be the leading actors? How will the Shah’s pet projects, including the economic development program, be effected by his departure?”

4. By July 1977, anticipating trouble ahead, the Bush covert team issued preliminary script for the transition of power in Iran. According to John D. Stemple, a CIA analyst and Deputy Chief Political officer of the U.S. Embassy in Iran, “A ten page analysis of the opposition written by the embassy’s political section in July 1977 correctly identified Bakhiar, Bazargan, Khomeini and Behesti as major actors in the drama that begin unfolding a year later.”

5. Contrary to this analysis, in August 1977, the “official wing” of the CIA fed President Carter a 60-page Study on Iran which concluded:

“The Shah will be an active participant in Iranian life well into the 1980s…and there will be no radical changes in Iranian political behavior in the near future.”

6. On October 31, 1977, president Carter made good on his campaign promise to clean the “cowboys” out of the CIA. He fired over 800 covert operatives from the Agency, many of whom were loyal to George Bush. Carter’s presidency split the CIA. It produced in them, among whom were “many well-trained in political warfare, a concerted will for revenge.” By the end of the 1970s many of these special covert operatives had allied themselves with George Bush’s candidacy, and later with Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign.

7. On November 15, the Shah of Iran visited Washington, D.C. Carter toasted his guest, “If ever there was a country which has blossomed forth under enlightened leadership, it would be the ancient empire of Persia.”

8. On November 23, Ayatollah Khomeini’s elder son, Haji Mustafa, died mysteriously in Najaf, Iraq. According to professor Hamid Algar, he was “assassinated by the Shah’s U.S.-instituted security police SAVAK…the tragedy inflamed the public in Iran.” Ayatollah Khomeini placed an advertisement in the French Newspaper Le Monde which read: “thanking people for condolences that had been sent of the murder of his son”. He also “appealed to the army to liberate Iran, and to the intellectuals and all good Muslims to continue their criticism of the Shah”.

9. December 31, 1977, Carter visited the Shah in Iran. He toasted the Shah for maintaining Iran as “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.” Ironically, that so-called stability evaporated before the champagne lost its fizz.

10. On January 7, 1978, an insidious article entitled Iran and the Red and Black Colonialism, appeared in the Iranian daily newspaper Ettela’at. It castigated the exiled Khomeini, and produced a massive protest riot in the Holy City of Qum the next day. The clergy had little choice but to rally to Khomeini’s defense. The Qum incident shifted many of the clergy from a position of support for the Shah’s monarchy to an active opposition. That “dirty trick” perpetuated by General Fardoust was the trigger that sparked Islamic movement participating in the anti-Shah democratic Revolution. John D. Stempel, characterized Fardoust’s importance to the Alliance: “it is hard to over estimated the value of having a mole in the inner circle of the Shah.”

11. On February 3, a confidential communiqué from the U.S. Embassy clearly reflected the vision of the Alliance: “Though based on incomplete evidence, our best assessment to date is that the Shia Islamic movement dominated by Ayatollah Khomeini is far better organized, enlighten and able to resist Communism than its detractors would lead us to believe. It is rooted in the Iranian people more than any western ideology, including Communism.”

12. April 1978, Le Monde “identified Khomeini’s Liberation Movement of Iran as the most significant force in the opposition followed by the Shi’ite Islam joins the reformist of progressive critics of the Shah on the same ground. In fact, this analysis was contrary to what Mohaammad Tavassoli, leader of the Liberation Movement of Iran, expressed to John D. Stempel on August 21, 1978: “The nationalist movement in Iran lacks a popular base. The choice is between Islam and Communism…close ties between the Liberation Movement of Iran and the religious movement was necessary. Iran was becoming split by Marxist and the religious.”

13. On April 26, the confidential minutes of the U. S. Embassy Country team meeting welcomed Bush, Reagan and Thatcher.

14. On May 6, Le Monde became the first western newspaper to interview Khomeini in Najaf, Iraq. Khomeini acknowledged his compatibility with the strategic imperatives of the Bush covert team, “we would not collaborate with the Marxists, even to the overthrow of the Shah.”

15. The same month, Khomeini’s old ally from the failed 1963 coup (that resulted in Khomeini’s arrest and major uprising in June 1963 and his subsequent exile to Iraq) General Valliollah Qarani sent his emissary to meet Khomeini in Najaf. Qarani had been a major CIA asset in Iran since the 1953 coup. Seeing another chance to gain power for himself, he advised Khomeini, according to former Iranian President Abol Hassan Bani-sader:

“if you settle for the Shah’s departure and don’t use anti-American rhetoric, Americans are ready to take him out.”

16. In August, the Bush team sent its own point man to meet the exiled Ayatollah in Najaf. Professor Richard Cottam carried excellent credentials. During the 1953 coup, he had been in charge of the CIA’s Iran Desk, also, he had been in close contact with Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi in the U.S. since 1975. Curiously, he admitted to Bani-sadr in 1987, that he had not been working for the Carter Administration. Cottam’s visit must have had an impact, because Iran suddenly began to experience a series of mysterious catastrophes:

  • In Aberdeen, Fundamentalist supporters burned down a theater killing the innocent occupants, blaming it on the SAVAK and the Shah.
  • There were riots in Isfahan that resulted in martial law.
  • On August 27, one of Khomeini’s rivals among the Shia Islamic faithful outside of Iran, Ayatollah Mosa Sadr mysteriously disppeared. According to an intelligence source he was killed and buried in Libya.

17. By late August, the Shah was totally confused. U.S. Ambassador Sullivan recorded the Shah’s pleadings over the outbreak of violence:

“he said the pattern was widespread and that it was like an outbreak of a sudden rash in the country…it gave evidence of sophisticated planning and was not the work of spontaneous oppositionists…the Shah presented that it was the work of foreign intrigue…this intrigue went beyond the capabilities of the Soviet KGB and must, therefore, also involve British and American CIA. The Shah went on to ask ‘Why was the CIA suddenly turning against him? What had he done to deserve this sort of action from the United States?”

18. September 8, the Shah’s army gunned down hundreds of demonstrators in Teheran in what became known as the “Jaleh Square Massacre”.

19. On September 9, President Carter phoned the Shah to confirm his support for the Shah, a fact that enraged the Iranian population.

20. A few days later, Carter’s National Security aide, Gary Sick, received a call from Richard Cottam, requesting a discrete meeting between him and Khomeini’s representative in the U.S., Dr. Yazdi. Sick refused.

21. Khomeini for the first time, publicly called for the Shah’s overthrow.

22. In Mid-September, at the height of the revolution, “one of the handful of Khomeini’s trusted associates”, Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Beheshti, secretly visited the United States among others, he also meet with Yazdi in Texas. Beheshti was an advocate of the eye-for-an-eye school of justice.

23. In early October 1978, the agent for the Bush covert team arranged to force Khomeini out of Iraq.

24. October 3, 1978, Yazdi picked up Khomeini in Iraq and headed for Kuwait. According to Gary Sick, he received an urgent call from Richard Cottam, learning for the first time that Khomeini had been forced out of Iraq. Sick was told that Khomeini and his entourage were stuck in no man’s land while attempting to cross the border. Cottam was requesting White House intervention to resolve the issue. Sick respond, “there is nothing we could do”.

25. October 6, Khomeini’s entourage, having gotten back through Baghdad, popped up in Paris. According to Bani-sadr, “it was Khomeini who insisted on going to Paris instead of Syria or Algeria”. Whoever helped Khomeini out of the Kuwaiti border impasse had to have been on good terms with both the French and Saddam Hussein.

26. December 12, Yazdi made a trip to the U.S. to promote Khomeini and his Islamic Republic. Yazdi met secretly with Henry Precht on an unofficial capacity. Precht was the Director of the Iran Desk at the State Department and one of the Bush team’s main choke points in the Carter Administration. Later Precht and Yazdi appeared together for televised discussion of Iran. Yazdi assured the American public that Khomeini had not really called for a “torrent of blood”, and that the “election would be absolutely free”. The Islamic Republic “would enjoy full freedom of speech and the press, including the right to attack Islam.

27. December 28, Cottam visited Khomeini in Paris where he noted that U.S. citizen Dr. Yazdi was the “leading tactician in Khomeini’s camp” and apparent “chief of staff”. Khomeini was not interested in the Mullahs taking over the government. Also noted that “Khomeini’s movement definitely plans to organize a political party to draw on Khomeini’s charisma. Cottam thinks such a party would win all Majlis seats.”

28. Leaving Paris, Cottam slipped into Teheran, arriving the first week in January 1979, to prepare Khomeini’s triumphal return to Iran.

29. January 4, 1979, Carter’s secret envoy, General Robert Huyser arrived in Iran. His mission was to prevent the “fall of the Shah”. According to Huyser, Alexander Haig, ostensibly a strong Shah supporter-inexplicably, “took violent exception to the whole idea.” Huyser recalled that “General Haig never gave me a full explanation of his strong objections.” Huyser also revealed that Ambassador Sullivan “had also expressed objections.” Two pro-Shah advocates opposed to the prevention of the Shah’s fall.

30. On January 14, President Carter finally “authorized a meeting between Warren Zimmerman and Ibrahim Yazdi. On the same day, Khomeini, in an interview on CBS claimed, “a great part of the army was loyal to him” and that “he will be in effect the strong man of Iran.”

31. On January 16, in an exact repeat of the 1953 CIA coup, Bush’s covert team ushered the “eccentric and weak” Shah out of Iran.

32. On February 1, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini staged his own version of a “triumphal return” in the streets of Teheran.

33. Khomeini moved quickly to establish his authority. On February 5 he named Mehdi Bazargan, a devoted Muslim and anti-communist, interim Prime Minister. Yazdi and Abbas Amir Entezam became Bazargan’s deputies, Dr. Sanjabi Foreign Minister, and General Qarani was named military Chief of Staff.

34. On February 11, 1979, in seemingly a bizarre twist, General Qarani asked the Shah’s “eyes and ears” General Hossien Fardoust for recommendations to fill the new top posts in Iran’s armed forces. Outside of the Chief of SAVAK, all the other recommendations were accepted. Shortly after, General Fardoust became head of SAVAMA, Khomeini’s successor to SAVAK.

35. On February 14, 1979, two weeks after Khomeini’s return to Iran, the U.S. Embassy in Teheran was seized by Khomeini supporters disguised as leftist guerrillas in an attempt to neutralize the left. U.S. hostages were seized, but to the chagrin of Khomeini’s Fundamentalist, the Iranian coalition government restored order immediately. Ironically, in the same day in Kabul, Afghanistan, the U.S. Ambassador was also kidnapped by fanatic Islamic Fundamentalists disguised as leftist guerrillas and killed in the gunfight.

36. On February 14, soon after the order was restored at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, Khomeini’s aide Yazdi supplied the Embassy with a group of Iranians for compound security. Ambassador Sullivan installed armed, and trained this Swat squad lead by SAVAK/CIA agent Mashallah Kahsani, with whom Sullivan developed a close working relationship.

37. By August, pro-Bush CIA official George Cave was visiting Iran to provide intelligence briefings to Khomeini’s aides, especially Yazdi and Entezam. These intelligence exchanges continued until October 31, the day Carter fired Bush and the 800 agents. Then with all the Iranian officials who had restored order in the first Embassy seizure eliminated, the stage was set for what happened four days later.

38. On November 4, 1979, the U.S. Embassy was taken again. Leading the charge was none other than Ambassador Sullivan’s trusted Mashallah Kashani, the Embassy’s once and former security chief.

With the evidence and documentation supplied by Mansoor, the alleged October Surprise would not have been necessary. President Carter was the target, in revenge for the Halloween Massacre, the night 800 CIA operatives and George Bush were fired by Carter. The man thrust, however, was to prevent a communist takover of Iran on the Shah’s anticpated death.

Report: Realistic Urban Training is DHS and DOD “Conducting Desensitizing Exercises”

Just a couple years ago we reported that the U.S. military was involved in war gaming scenarios that included training for such things as large scale economic collapse and civil unrest. Photos from the training exercises showed simulated situations that included protesters holding up “We Need Food Now” signs. It was a clear sign that the government is preparing for just such an event, and that they were training military personnel to respond in the capacity of a domestic police force.

The warnings we and others issued were ignored by most of the population and dismissed by many as nothing more than conspiracy theory and fear mongering.

A few years on, the military continues to step up exercises focused on urban deployment and as recently as last month held live exercises in heavily populated US metropolitan areas.

Residents of Miami and Houston were treated to troop mobilizations, machine gun fire, and gunships flying over their cities. After concerned callers reported the activities to local news stations, the media quickly moved to calm fears of a terrorist attack or invasion. They smiled while they did it and shrugged off the unprecedented displays as just your average, everyday military exercise.

Except, of course, the US military, up until recently, has never openly trained in U.S. cities, and especially not in scores of cities with training spread over such a short period of time.

Which begs the question, why are the military and local law enforcement holding realistic urban training exercises on the streets of America when they could do it at any of the hundreds of training facilities around the world?

Via: The Daily CruxBurning Platform

I was once stationed at Camp Lejuene, NC.  As a Navy Corpsman, I helped care for Marines.  I tell you this because inevitably there will be those that assume I hold some anti-military motive.

At no time during my time there were “realistic urban training” exercises conducted in towns and cities.  This is a recent development.

The training has been coordinated with local, county and state agencies and officials, including the Ridgeland police and fire departments, according to a Marine Corps news release.

Although there is no danger, Farao said residents should stay away if they see training under way or uniformed personnel.

Realistic Urban Training is happening all over the U.S.  

In Miami, Florida on January 26, 2013, Army Backhawk helicopters swooped through the city at night, firing door-guns and chasing make-believe bad guys like something out of an action movie.  The fired blanks echoed off of the buildings, scaring many residents into taking cover.  The local news reported excitedly about the exercise, stating it was only a drill and for residents not to be concerned. However, there was no journalistic follow up asking hard questions.  Such as, who authorized an exercise without informing the public?  Why conduct this type of training in a populated U.S. city and put citizens at risk?  Isn’t this a violation of Posse Comitatus?  No hard follow up questions were asked, and to my knowledge, have not been since.

Not even when the same exercise occurred in Houston, Texas on January 29, 2013.   The U.S. Army along with other agencies took over the Carnegie Vanguard High School in Houston on Monday. Alarmed residents called police and complained about gunshots and helicopters.  No details were provided about the training.  Watch the KTRK-TV Houston report and hear how alarmed residents responded after hearing gunshots and seeing military helicopters flying over their homes.

According to Sgt. 1st Class Michael Noggle, an Army spokesman based at Fort Bragg, N.C., “We were invited by the city of Galveston to conduct joint training exercises to enhance the effectiveness of both services in order to better protect the residents of Galveston.”

He went on to say in an email that “The purpose of the realistic urban training is to give our Special Operators an opportunity to hone their skills in a controlled, but unfamiliar, realistic urban environment that cannot be replicated with the bare-boned facades found on military installation ranges.”

I’ve highlighted a few examples, but there are more.  In a search I came upon these others.  Los Angeles, CA,  Plainville and Worchester, Massachusetts.  As reported in the other stories, residents were unaware of the drills until helicopters swooped over their neighborhoods. And here’s more: Minneapolis, MN, and this in East Saint Louis, MO.  There are many more, but these links provide a foundation for further research.

I spoke with a high-ranking, military source in DHS.

Preferring to remain unnamed for obvious reasons, he told me, “DHS and DOD are conducting desensitizing exercises all across the U.S.,” he paused, then added, “we’re being prepared for mass civil unrest in major U.S. cities.  DOD will be expected to help – when we’re requested.”

I asked if there was a timeline for expecting civil unrest in our cities and why should we expect it to begin with.

I was told that there were many reasons, but that the continued devaluation of our currency, the predicted history-setting prices for gasoline this summer and the continued gun control debate are forming a perfect storm of civil discontent.  When this storm hits, it will most assuredly produce mass casualties.  When does DHS expect this to happen? 

This summer.

From a high-ranking source deep within DHS, who has strong DOD ties, we are being told that joint DOD-local law enforcement exercises are to desensitize us to military occupation.  When asked if there was any concern about violating Posse Comitatus, he stated “no concern at all,” and added, “That’s been a non-issue for a long time.”

Source: The Allegiant

We are hearing similar reports from DHS, DOD, and law enforcement sources known by numerous investigators and reporters in alternative media. Many of the sources have requested to remain anonymous, prompting skeptics to call it bunk. However, it’s hard to believe that there is nothing to this. Furthermore, if you were privy to details that your government was about to implement a massive police state and past whistle blowers were imprisoned and had their lives destroyed, would you be willing to share your name and put your family in harm’s way?

As noted by Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones in a recent report at Infowars.com, there is a strong possibility that whatever the US government is preparing for has been orchestrated by the elite, who hope to benefit in the form of money, resources and power, something we’ve seen throughout history:

Every indication clearly suggests that authorities in the United States are preparing for widespread civil unrest. This trend has not emerged by accident – it is part of a tried and tested method used by the banking elite to seize control of nations, strip them of their assets, and absorb them into the new world order.

 There is a crucial economic imperative as to why the elite is seeking to engineer and exploit social unrest.

One of the final steps of the process, the “IMF riot,” detailed how the elite would plan for mass civil unrest ahead of time that would have the effect of scaring off investors and causing government bankruptcies.

“This economic arson has its bright side – for foreigners, who can then pick off remaining assets at fire sale prices,” writes Palast, adding, “A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers but the clear winners seem to be the western banks and US Treasury.”

In other words, the banking elite creates the very economic environment – soaring interest rates, spiraling food prices, poverty, lower standards of living – that precipitates civil unrest – and then like a vulture swoops down to devour what remains of the country’s assets on the cheap.

We have already seen this process unfold in places like Bolivia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Greece and Argentina. Next on the chopping block are Spain, Italy, Britain and France – all of which have seen widespread riots over the last two years.

Given the clear economic motive for stirring unrest in the United States, we’d expect to see preparations for domestic disorder in numerous different guises – and indeed the signs are everywhere. 

Full Infowars Report

Most Americans cannot possibly fathom an America where the economy has collapsed, the dollar is valueless, and food is so expensive that it can’t be had by the majority of the populace.

They can’t imagine any situation that would require the deployment of military soldiers into their towns and cities.

They are clueless to the existence of the National Defense Authorization Act which legalizes the indefinite detention of terror suspects. They think the Patriot Act is legislation that applies only to Al Queda. They don’t know, nor do they care, that President Obama has signed numerous Executive Orders designed for continuity of government operations and martial law.

None of them realize that the President himself is now creating kill lists and justifications for why American citizens can be targeted by military drone strikes without charge or trial.

For these people, with their heads buried in the sand, America today is the same as it has always been.

When their idealistic paradigm of stable 9-5 employment, ample retirement funds, weekend barbecues, and Constitutional protections comes to end, what do you think they are going to do?

What will they do should stock markets melt down, the US dollar crashes or the economy collapses to Great Depression levels?

They will panic. They will riot in the streets. They will turn violent. Their whole world will be turned upside down and devolve into violence and bloodshed.

The government knows this. Homeland security knows this. The military knows this. Any student of history knows this.

We are now being desensitized to the response should it ever come to pass.

Nuclear Test #3: What will Follow Pyongyang’s Dangerous Atomic Gambit?

An activist from an anti-North Korea civic group defaces a North Korea flag depicting North's leader Kim Jong-un and his wife Ri Sol-ju during a rally against North Korea's nuclear test near the U.S. embassy in central Seoul

 North Korea’s nuclear and rocket tests are viewed domestically as essential for national security and prestige. But they alienated even China, and may escalate tensions beyond the point of no return, which would be disastrous for everyone involved.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have ignited once again, marking the most-unstable period of inter-Korean relations since Kim Jong-un began his tenure in December 2011. On February 12, 2013, news surfaced of man-made seismic activity measuring at 4.9 on the Richter scale in North Korea, which was later confirmed to be the result of the third nuclear test Pyongyang promised to carry out.

Following the successful launch of an indigenous satellite into orbit using a long-range missile in December 2012, the UN Security Council recently tightened sanctions on the DPRK that impose asset freezes and travel bans on individuals involved in state companies and North Korea’s space agency. Pyongyang has recently threatened to respond to the tightened UN sanctions using “stronger measures” than a nuclear test.

 An official of the Korea Meteorological Administration shows a seismic image of a tremor caused by North Korea′s nuclear test, in Seoul on February 12, 2013. (AFP Photo/Kim Jae-Hwan)
An official of the Korea Meteorological Administration shows a seismic image of a tremor caused by North Korea′s nuclear test, in Seoul on February 12, 2013. (AFP Photo/Kim Jae-Hwan)

While bellicose rhetoric is to be expected from Pyongyang, recent statements against the United States and South Korea are unusually high on the Richter scale of belligerence. “We are not disguising the fact that the various satellites and long-range rockets that we will fire and the high-level nuclear test we will carry out are aimed at the United States,” stated North Korea’s National Defense Commission.

Pyongyang has also warned of “physical countermeasures” against South Korea if they participate in the UN sanctions against the North, stating, “as long as the South Korean puppet traitors’ regime continues with its anti-DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] hostile policy, we will never sit down with them.”

Activists from an anti-North Korea civic group burn a North Korea flag in front of banners bearing anti-North Korea messages near the U.S. embassy in central Seoul February 12, 2013. (Reuters/Kim Hong-Ji)
Activists from an anti-North Korea civic group burn a North Korea flag in front of banners bearing anti-North Korea messages near the U.S. embassy in central Seoul February 12, 2013. (Reuters/Kim Hong-Ji)

Reports issued prior to the February 12 test claimed that North Korea has allegedly been placed under martial law, and its people told to “prepare for war” with the South. South Korean sources reported, accurately, that Kim Jong-un issued a secret order to “complete preparations for a nuclear weapons test and carry it out soon.” Seoul-based military sources have also claimed that Pyongyang plans to conduct two simultaneous nuclear tests at once, or in quick succession, based on satellite data monitoring the North’s Punggye-ri nuclear test site.

To further complicate matters, General Jung Seung-jo, Chairman of South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that the South could launch pre-emptive strikes against the North if it tried to use nuclear weapons, stating, “if [the North] shows a clear intent to use a nuclear weapon, it is better to get rid of it and go to war, rather than being attacked.” North Korea’s plans to test nuclear weapons go against the conciliatory tone struck by Kim Jong-un toward relations with the South in his New Year’s Address, and his intentions to bolster the isolated state’s moribund economy.
Nuclear insecurity

Pyongyang is often viewed as a wildcard, but a closer examination of its domestic affairs in recent years shows that moves towards nuclearization are inevitably linked to extracting as many aid concessions as possible (especially at a time when political changes are taking place in South Korea), in addition to buying time for the regime in Pyongyang to incrementally improve its weapons technology.

Pyongyang is keen to avoid being overly reliant on Beijing, and so North Korea actually has a strong imperative to secure as much aid as possible from the US and South Korea to keep itself afloat. This recent nuclear test does not serve the DPRK’s interests and will only further strain its economic lifeline with China, even possibly inviting preemptive strikes from South Korean forces, leading to open war and a truly unpredictable situation that all regional players should be keen to avoid.

South Korean passengers watch TV news reporting North Korea′s apparent nuclear test, at the Seoul train station on February 12, 2013. (AFP Photo/Kim Jae-Hwan)
South Korean passengers watch TV news reporting North Korea′s apparent nuclear test, at the Seoul train station on February 12, 2013. (AFP Photo/Kim Jae-Hwan)

From the perspective of the Kim regime, which molds the opinions that North Korean civilians uphold, half of the Korean Peninsula is occupied by the United States. State newspapers such as the Rodong Sinmun routinely refer to the South Korean government as a puppet of the United States, and recently highlighted Pyongyang’s displeasure with increasingly provocative joint US-ROK military drills: “Ultra-modern war means are being amassed in South Korea and in the areas around the Korean Peninsula. The US nuclear submarine and Aegis cruiser entered south Korea to hold combined marine exercises and to show off ‘military muscle’… warmongers are inciting war fever while touring units in the forefront areas.”

North Korea routinely complains of discrimination by world powers, compelling it to resort to nuclear deterrence; the fact that South Korea faced no international obstruction over its recent satellite launch only reinforces Pyongyang’s rationale. By acknowledging the “ultra-modern” military capabilities of the joint US-ROK forces, it can be gathered that the North realizes its own arsenal is much less sophisticated, as many military analysts confirm.

The military muscle of the US-ROK forces certainly poses an existential threat to Pyongyang, and as a result, the Kim dynasty sees the proliferation of nuclear weapons as the only surefire way to guarantee its own security. However, the North Koreans must realize that they can only get away with nuclear adventurism for so long, and it appears that the DPRK may soon be at risk of aggravating the hand that feeds it – literally.

This screen grab taken from North Korean TV on February 12, 2013 shows an announcer reading a statement on the country′s nuclear test. (AFP Photo/NORTH KOREAN TV)

This screen grab taken from North Korean TV on February 12, 2013 shows an announcer reading a statement on the country’s nuclear test. (AFP Photo/NORTH KOREAN TV)

Straining ties with Beijing

China is not looking for any additional agitation as it prepares for its once-in-a-decade leadership transition. Analysts are pondering how Xi Jingping’s administration will treat North Korea. China’s seven-member Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) is the ultimate decision-making and policy-shaping body, and two members of China’s incoming PSC, Zhang Dejiang and Sun Zhengcai, have spent years in close proximity to North Korea, engaging in cross-border interactions with North Korean counterparts aiming to promote economic reform in Pyongyang.

Despite nearly open war between the two Koreas in 2010 after the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island and the sinking of a South Korean military vessel, China’s relationship with North Korea during the incumbent Hu Jintao administration was marked by several victories – noticeable economic cooperation with Beijing during the stable succession of Kim Jong-un, and a general lack of external interference in the DPRK’s affairs.

Much to the surprise of many analysts, China backed the recent UN sanctions on Pyongyang, indicating some disapproval with the Kim dynasty’s hostility. Even so, it is unlikely that Beijing and Washington will begin playing from the same sheet music. China signaled its frustration with the North in an opinion piece in the ultra-nationalis newspaper Global Times: “If North Korea engages in further nuclear tests, China will not hesitate to reduce its assistance to North Korea.” The editorial went on to say that if the US, Japan and South Korea “promote extreme U.N. sanctions on North Korea, China will resolutely stop them and force them to amend these draft resolutions.”

Activists from an anti-North Korea civic group burn placards of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during a protest against North Korea nuclear test in Seoul on February 12, 2013. (AFP Photo/(Kim Jae-Hwan)
Activists from an anti-North Korea civic group burn placards of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during a protest against North Korea nuclear test in Seoul on February 12, 2013. (AFP Photo/(Kim Jae-Hwan)

China’s position on this issue should be commended for its balanced approach. For Beijing, stability is the name of the game; China does not want any military confrontations or mass refugee spillovers into its borders.

Even as Beijing becomes more upfront with its discontent, China has a valuable economic stake in North Korea’s development; it continually invests in joint ventures with Pyongyang and has led initiatives to develop the nation’s vast untapped mineral resources (which include deposits of coal, iron ore, gold ore, zinc ore, copper ore, and others) valued at a staggering $6.1 trillion.

The centerpiece of Beijing’s foreign policy strategy towards the North under Xi Jingping will be encouraging the regime to behave more sensibly and focus on meeting the needs of its people. Perhaps policymakers in Beijing will have an easier time convincing Pyongyang to drop the nuclear rhetoric in exchange for a meaningful security pact in which Pyongyang is guaranteed military support from China if things ever get ugly. Given the non-interference stance championed by Beijing, it would be doubtful that Beijing would extend itself in this way.
Conundrum for President-elect Park

This third nuclear test will also put South Korean President-elect Park Geun-hye in an extremely uncomfortable position, making it easy for her to enrage those on both South Korea’s left and right depending on how hard or soft a line she toes with Pyongyang.

Park spoke of easing relations with the DPRK, but like her predecessor, she maintains that the North’s denuclearization is a prerequisite for any negotiations; translation – there will be no negotiations and the ROK’s foreign policy trajectory is likely not to differ from that of hardline-conservative President Lee Myung-bak.

Pyongyang has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to comply with the ROK’s demands, and vice-versa. Inter-Korean relations appear to be following a repetitive script, with Washington’s solution to every issue being to tighten sanctions on the North.

No good from US military pressure

The case has never been stronger for the withdrawal of the 28,500 US troops stationed in South Korea, a move that would satisfy civilians in both Koreas and yield higher chances of provoking a positive response from Pyongyang.

Analyst Geoffrey Fattig argues in favor of a new approach being taken by the US by highlighting how Washington’s main source of leverage against the North is the military option, citing the friction caused by the mere presence of US troops: “The Obama administration needs to realize that it is holding a weak hand and fundamentally change its strategy… it is time for the Obama administration to start withdrawing the American military from Korean soil.

He adds: “Not only would such a move save billions of dollars annually at a time when the cost of maintaining America’s global garrison is coming under increasing scrutiny, but it would shift the impetus for negotiating solutions to the long-running dispute squarely onto the shoulders of the key players in the region.”

South Korean soldiers march during their military drills near the demilitarized zone separating North Korea from South Korea, in Paju, north of Seoul February 12, 2013. (Reuters/Lee Jae-Won)

South Korean soldiers march during their military drills near the demilitarized zone separating North Korea from South Korea, in Paju, north of Seoul February 12, 2013. (Reuters/Lee Jae-Won)

Pyongyang must play along

Pyongyang is playing a dangerous game, and its continued belligerence can only be tolerated for so long. At this stage, Kim Jong-un’s rhetoric of bringing about a “radical turn in the building of an economic giant” can only be taken as seriously as Pyongyang’s hilarious claims of “conquering space” by launching its satellite. By failing to be a coherent actor in the economic, security and diplomatic realms, the DPRK is doing more long-term harm to its existence than it realizes.

North Korea suffered immense human losses during the Korean War throughout the relentless US bombing campaign that flattened the country; it has legitimate grievances in wanting to safeguard its national security, but its lunatic defiance, odious personality cult, and unwillingness to follow Beijing’s advice by making serious economic reforms only further ostracizes Pyongyang in the eyes of the international community, to the point where its right of self-defense is being infringed by UN resolutions.

North Korea’s controversial nuclear tests carry the very real possibility of a deadly military conflict between the two Koreas – a conflict that must be avoided no matter how provocative, belligerent or infantile either side behaves.

Nile Bowie is an independent political commentator and photographer based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He can be reached at [email protected]

Ecuador: Left-Center Political Regimes versus Radical Social Movements

latinamerica

Introduction

On February 17, 2013, national elections will take place in Ecuador in which incumbent left-center President, Rafael Correa, is likely to win with an absolute majority against opposition candidates covering the political spectrum from Right to Left.  Since he was first elected in 2006, Correa has won a string of elections, including presidential elections (2009), a constitutional referendum, a constituent assembly and a ballot on constitutional amendments.

Correa’s electoral successes occur despite the opposition from the main Indian organizations, CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) and CONFENIAE, the principle public sector teachers unions, environmental NGOs and numerous radical intellectual, academics and trade union activists.  He also has routed the traditional pro-US right-wing and liberal parties, successfully defeated and prosecuted the subversive intent of the mass media moguls and survived an aborted police-military coup in 2010.  Unquestionably Correa has demonstrated his capacity to win repeated elections and even increase his margin of victory.

The electoral successes of Correa raise fundamental issues which transcend the immediate context of Ecuadorean politics and reflect a general pattern throughout Latin America .  These issues include:

(1) the relation between mass social movements and left of center electoral parties and politicians.

(2) The relation between pro-active extractive capitalist development strategies (mining, oil, agro-business), inclusionary social policies and anti-imperialist regional foreign policies.

(3) The inverse relation between the growth and consolidation of a left-center regime and the decline and weakening of radical social movements.

(4)  The problem of the initial convergence and divergence between radical social movements and left-center political leaders; as they move from ‘opposition’ to political power.

(5) The shifts in power between movements and electoral politicians, with the former exercising greater capacity to mobilize during the period of opposition to the Right and the latter dominating and dictating the political agenda subsequent to securing electoral office.

The Politics of Post Neo-Liberalism

Correa’s “citizen based” electoral movement, operates from positions in government and eschews any ‘class framework’.  In fact in its broadest terms, it appeals to and directs government programs to both the urban poor and the big foreign petroleum multi-nationals; the small and medium size business people and the Guayaquil business elite; workers in the informal sector and the public sector professionals and employees, the returning immigrants from Europe (especially Spain) and the construction, real estate and communication elite.

In foreign policy Correa has supported and has the backing of the Cuban and Venezuelan governments and is a member of ALBA; it has received large scale low interest loans from China (in exchange for oil investment and trade agreements) and retains commercial ties with the US and EU.  Correa has backed greater Latin American integration and signed off on major public-private petrol contracts with US and European oil companies.  He claims to be a socialist but condemns the Marxist FARC and praises the Colombian regimes’ ‘neo-liberalism’; questioned the illegal foreign debt (lowering it by 60%) and at the same time retains the dollar as Ecuador ’s currency and opens indigenous territories to foreign capital exploitation.

In a word Correa’s “post neo-liberal policies” combine ‘nationalist populist’ and neo-liberal policies more than a program for  the 21st century socialism that he proclaims.

Perspectives on President Correa’s Government

The national-populist extractive policies and development strategy of the Correa regime has polarized opinion across the hemisphere and within Ecuador .  On the extreme right Washington and its mass media acolytes view Ecuador as a radical ‘socialist regime’.  They take at face value Correa’s embrace of “21st century socialism”, in large part because of his ties to Venezuela, membership in ALBA, renegotiation of the foreign debt and Ecuador’s giving political asylum (in its British embassy) to Julian Assange, the Wilkileak’s leader.

Echoing Washington’s ‘radical leftist’ label are the traditional and newly minted rightist parties (Sociedad Patriotica)  who have been marginalized by Correa’s electoral successes.  Their critique of Correa’s early nationalist policies, renegotiating the debt and prevailing oil contracts, is now tempered by his recent large scale, long term investment agreement with several foreign multinational petroleum companies.  The Ecuadorean oligarchy while publically condemning Correa are privately busy negotiating public-private procurement agreements especially in communications, infrastructure and banking.

The Indian movement, CONAIE, peasants, the teachers union, the ecology-NGOs and some smaller leftist parties oppose Correa for his “sellout” to the big oil companies, his authoritarian centralized power, the expansion of exploitation in the Amazon region and territorial encroachment and threats to Indian lands, water and health.

In contrast to internal opposition from the social movements, the vast majority of leftist parties and center-leftist regimes in Latin America, led by Cuba and Venezuela, are staunch supporters and allies of the Correa regime based primarily on his anti-imperialist policies, support for regional integration and opposition to US interventionist and destabilization policies in the region.

Internationally Correa has widespread support among progressives in the US and Europe especially for his early policies questioning the legality of the foreign debt, his rhetorical proposal to conserve the Amazon in exchange for cash transfers from the EU/US, his renegotiations of the oil contracts and his anti-imperialist pronouncements.  Most important, Correa has secured long term large scale financial aid from China in exchange for exploitation of its oil resources.

Buttressed by allies in Latin America and Asia, Correa has effectively resisted pressures from the outside from the US .  Internally, Correa has built a formidable bloc of social and political forces which has effectively countered opposition from the oligarchical right as well as from the once powerful radical social movements.  The sustained popular majorities backing Correa from 2006 to the present 2013 are based essentially on several factors – substantial increases in social expenditures benefiting popular constituencies and nationalist policies increasing state revenues. The entire Correa paradigm, however, is based on one singular factor – the high price for oil and the boom in commodity prices which finances his strategy of extractive capital led growth and expenditures for social inclusion.

The Social Bases of Correa’s Popularity

Correa’s electoral victories are directly related to his populist social policies financed by the substantial oil revenues resulting from the high prices and huge increase from the renegotiation of the oil contracts with the multi-nationals – an increase from a 20% to an 85% tax.  Correa increased the health budget from $561 million in 2006 to $774 million in 2012, about 6.8% of the national budget.

Clinics have multiplied, the price of medications has been reduced as a result of a joint venture with the Cuban firm Enfarm, and access to medical care has vastly improved.  Educational spending has increased from 2.5% of GDP in 2006 to 6% in 2013, including a free lunch program for children.  The regime has increased state subsidies for social housing, especially for low income classes as well as returning immigrants. To lower unemployment, Correa has allocated $140 million in micro credits to finance self-employment, a measure especially popular among workers in the “informal sector”.  By effectively reducing the debt to foreign creditors by two-thirds (debt service runs to 2.24% of GDP), Correa has increased the minimum wage and pensions for low income retirees thus expanding the social security system.

Anti-poverty subsidies, payments of $35 monthly (increased to $50 two weeks before the Elections) to poor families and the disabled and low interest loans have allowed Correa to gain influence and divide the opposition movements in the countryside. Business elites especially in Guayaquil and the middle and upper echelon of the public sector especially in the petrol sector, have become important contributors and backers of Correa’s electoral machine.

As a result of State subsidies, contracts and the backing of business and banking sectors and the weakening of the opposition media elites, Correa has built a broad electoral base that transverses the class spectrum.  The entire ‘popular alliance’ is, however, highly dependent on Correa’s pact with extractive multi-nationals.  His electoral success is a result of a strategy based on the revenue from a narrowly based export sector.  And the export sector is highly dependent on the expansion of oil exploitation in the Amazon region which adversely affects the livelihood and health of the indigenous communities, who in turn are highly organized and in a permanent ‘resistance mode”.

The Contradictions of Extractive Capitalism and Populist Politics:  The Threats and Challenges to Social Movements

The oil sector accounts for over 50 percent of Ecuador ’s export earnings and over one-third of all tax revenues.  Production has oscillated around 500,000 barrels a day, with increasing shares sold to China and a decreasing percentage to the US . In February 2013 Ecuador signed contracts for $1.7 billion in investments to boost output in the Amazon fields with Canadian, US, Spanish and Argentine multi-nationals in association with the Ecuadorean state company Petroecuador.

The biggest oil investments in the history of Ecuador promise to increase the levels of oil spills, contamination of Indian communities and intensification of the conflicts between CONAIE and its ecological and movement allies and the Correa regime.  In other words as Correa sustains and consolidates his majoritarian electoral support outside of the Amazon and adjoining regions with increased social expenditures based on rising oil revenues, he will further dispossess and alienate the movements of the interior.

Social inclusion of the urban masses and promotion of an independent foreign policy are based on an alliance with foreign extractive multi-nationals which undermine the habitation and economy of small producers and Indian communities.

The history of petroleum exploitation contamination up to the present day provides little evidence to support President Correa’s claims of environmental safeguards.  Texaco/Chevron oil exploitation in the Amazon contaminated millions of acres, dispossessed scores of Indian communities and sickened thousands of inhabitants resulting in a judiciary award of $8 billion dollars in favor of the 30,000 indigenous people adversely affected.

Recently Correa’s proposed oil contracts with multi-nationals to exploit 13 blocks in the pristine Amazon region covering millions of acres and inhabited by seven Indian nationalities, without consulting the indigenous communities thus contravening his own newly written constitution.  Powerful mobilizations, led by CONAIE and CONFEIAE (the Ecuadorean Confederation of Amazonian Indian Nationalities) on the 28th of November 2012 in Quito and in the regions targeted for exploitation, has caused several oil majors to delay drilling.  In the face of determined Indian resistance, Correa has shown the authoritarian side of his regime:  threatening to dispatch the military to occupy and forcibly impose a kind of ‘martial law’, raising the prospects of prolonged political warfare.

While Correa can and does win national elections and routs his electoral opposition in the big cities, he faces a resolute organized majority in the Amazon and adjoining regions.  Correa’s dilemma is that unless he diversifies the economy and reaches a compromise via consultation with CONAIE, his dependence on new oil ventures drives him toward de facto alliance with the traditional export elites and greater dependence on the military and police.

The Latin American Context

Correa’s bet on an export strategy based on primary goods has created a potentially dynamic mega cycle of growth but it is increasingly dependent on high world prices for oil.  Any significant decline in price would immediately lead to a precipitous fall in social expenditures, erode his social coalition and strengthen the opposition from the right and the radical social movements.  Correa’s repeated electoral successes and his widespread support across the progressive and anti-imperialist political spectrum, has seriously weakened the radical social movements a pattern that has been repeated throughout Latin America .

In the previous decade, roughly the period of the 1990’s to the early years of the 21st century, the radical social movements took center stage in toppling rightwing, US backed neo-liberal regimes.  Ecuador was no exception:  CONAIE and its urban allies ousted the incumbent neo-liberal President Mahuad in January 21, 2000, and joined with Correa in driving the Lucio Gutierrez regime from power in April 2005.  Similar mass struggles and social mobilizations ousted neo-liberals in Argentina and Bolivia , while movement backed center left politicians took power in Uruguay , Brazil , Paraguay and Peru .

Once ensconced in power the center-left regimes adopted a commodity led export strategy, embraced partnerships with the MNC and built broad electoral conditions which marginalized the radical social movements; with the aid of increased revenues they substituted populist transfer payments for structural transformations.

Nationalist foreign policies were combined with alliances with big commodity based MNC.  To the extent that class struggles emerged, the populist leaders condemned them and even accused their leaders of “conspiring with the Right” – thus questioning the legitimacy of their demands and struggles.

The post neo-liberal center-left regimes in Latin America, with their populist politics of ‘inclusion’ have been far more effective in reducing the appeal and influence of the radical mass social movements than the previous US backed repressive neo-liberal regimes.

Those social movements which opted to support and join the center-left regimes (or were co-opted) became transmission belts for extractive policies. Confined to administrating the regime’s anti-poverty programs and defending the extractive capitalist model, the co-opted leaders argued for higher tax revenues and social expenditures, and, occasionally, called for greater environmental controls.  But ultimately the “insider strategy”, adopted by some social leaders, has led to bureaucratic subordination and the loss of any specific class loyalties.

Conclusion

National-populism is and will be challenged from within by its ‘allies’ among the MNC who will increasingly influence their ‘public sector partners’ and, from the ‘outside’, by the pressures from the world market.  In the meantime as long as commodity prices hold and the nationalist-populist leaders continue their ‘inclusive’ social programs, Latin American politics will remain relative stable and the economy will continue to grow, but it will continue to face resistance from the alliance of eco-social  and indigenous movements.

What lessons can be drawn from the past two decades of social movement – populist electoral party alliances?  The message is both clear and ambiguous.  Clearly movements which do not have an independent political perspective will lose out to their electoral allies.  However, there is no question that because of movement action, the populist electoral class has legislated significant social expenditures benefiting the popular classes and pursued a relative independent foreign policy – an ambiguous legacy or unfinished history?

Obscuring Israel’s Occupation of Palestine: The Secrets of ‘The Gatekeepers’

VIDEO: Israeli Soldiers "Shoot to Kill" at Israeli Anti-war Demonstrators

“The Gatekeepers,” a new documentary, records the views of the Israeli security officials most responsible for suppressing Palestinian resistance and their growing doubts about the strategy of endless repression. But even this criticism glosses over the depth of the problem.

There is a new documentary movie about Israel called “The Gatekeepers,” directed by Dror Moreh and featuring interviews with all the former leaders of the Shin Bet, the country’s internal security organization.

The Shin Bet is assigned the job of preventing Palestinian retaliatory attacks on Israel and, as described by Moreh, the film “is the story of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories as told by the people at the crossroads of some of the most crucial moments in the security history of the country.” Along the way it touches on such particular topics as targeted assassinations, the use of torture, and “collateral damage.”

“The Gatekeepers” has garnered a lot of acclaim, playing at film festivals in Jerusalem, Amsterdam, New York, Toronto, Venice and elsewhere. It has won the Los Angeles Film Critics Association’s Best Documentary Award. It has been nominated for an Oscar.

In order to promote “The Gatekeepers,” Moreh has been doing interviews and recently appeared on CNN with Christiana Amanpour. He made a number of salient points, as did the Shin Bet leaders in the clips featured during the interview.

–Moreh says, “if there is someone who understands the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s these guys,” the Shin Bet leaders. Actually, this not necessarily true. One might more accurately claim that these men, who led Israel’s most secretive government institution, were and are so deeply buried inside their country’s security dilemma that they see it in a distorted fashion (with only occasional glimmers of clarity).

For instance, Avraham Shalom, head of the Shin Bet from 1981-1986, tells us that “Israel lost touch with how to coexist with the Palestinians as far back as the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967 … when the country started doubling down on terrorism.”

But is this really the case? One might more accurately assert that Israel had no touch to lose. Most of its Jewish population and leadership have never had an interest in coexistence with Palestinians in any egalitarian and humane sense of the term. The interviewed security chiefs focus on the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza because they are the ones who offered the most resistance to conquest. But what of the 20 percent of the population of Israel who are also Palestinian and who actually lived under martial law until 1966? You may call the discriminatory regime under which these people live “coexistence,” but it is the coexistence of superior over the inferior secured largely by intimidation.

–Moreh insists that it is the “Jewish extremists inside Israel” who have been the “major impediment” to resolving issues between Israel and the Palestinians. The film looks at the cabal of religious fanatics who, in 1980, planned to blow up the Muslim shrine of the Dome of the Rock on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, as well as the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Yet, as dangerous as Israel’s right-wing extremists and settler fanatics are, focusing exclusively on them obscures the full history of the occupation.

By 1977, when Menachem Begin and Israel’s right-wing fanatics fully took power, the process of occupation and ethnic cleansing was well under way. It had been conducted against both the Arab Israelis from 1948 onward, and against the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza after 1967. In both cases, it was initiated by the so-called Israeli Left: the Labor Party led by such people as David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin himself. Amongst the Israeli leadership, there were no clean hands.

–Finally, Dror Moreh repeatedly pushes another message: “a central theme of the documentary is the idea that Israel has incredible tactics, but it lacks long-term strategy … if [security] operations do not support a move toward a peace settlement, then they are meaningless.”

Again, this assessment reflects Moreh being so deeply situated inside of the problem that he cannot perceive it clearly. Moreh assumes that achieving peace with the Palestinians is the only “long-term strategy” Israel could possibly have and, in its absence, Israel pursues no strategy at all.

However, an objective assessment of Israeli history tells us that there has been another strategy in place. The Zionist leaders have, in fact, always had a long-term strategy to avoid any meaningful peace settlement, so as to allow: 1. occupation of all “Eretz Israel,” 2. the ethnic cleansing or cantonization of the native population, and 3. settlement of the cleansed territory with Jews.

It is because of this same naivete that Moreh confesses himself “shocked” when Avraham Shalom compares the occupation of the Palestinian territories to “Germany’s occupation of Europe.” It is to Shalom’s credit that he made the statement on camera, and to Morah’s credit that he kept the statement in the final version of the film. But then Moreh spoils this act of bravery when he tells Amanpour: “Only Jews can say these kind of words. And only they can have the justification to speak as they spoke in the film.”

Well, I can think of one other group of people who has every right to make the same comparison Shalom makes – the Palestinians.

Retired Official’s Confession Syndrome 

For all its shortcomings, the film is a step forward in the ongoing effort to deny the idealized Zionist storyline a monopoly in the West. Indeed, that “The Gatekeepers” was made at all, and was received so positively at major film venues, is a sign that this skewed Israeli storyline is finally breaking down. Certainly, this deconstruction still has a long way to go, but the process is picking up speed.

On the other hand, there is something troubling about the belated nature of the insights given in these interviews.  They are examples of what I like to call the “retired official’s confession syndrome.” Quite often those who, in retirement, make these sorts of confessions were well aware of the muddled or murderous situation while in office. But, apparently, they lacked the courage to publicize it at the time. It would have meant risking their careers, their popularity, and perhaps relations with their friends and family.

One is reminded of the fate of Professor Ilan Pappe, who has stood up and lived his principles, and eventually lost his position at Haifa University and was, in the end, forced into exile. For most, however, including these leaders of the Shin Bet, their understanding was clouded and their actions skewed by a time-honored, but deeply flawed, notion of “duty” to carry on like good soldiers.

To date, Israel’s leaders and Zionist supporters have shown an amazing capacity to ignore all criticism. The newly re-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has let it be known that he has no intention of watching “The Gatekeepers.” It is also questionable how many of those who voted for him, or other right-wing politicians, will bother to seek the documentary out.

Israel’s government has recently made the decision to ignore the country’s obligations under the United Nations Human Rights Charter, a decision signaled by its representatives refusal to show up for the country’s “universal periodic review” before the Human Rights Council. Nor is there any sign that any new right-wing led government coalition will stop the ethnic cleansing and illegal colonial repopulation of East Jerusalem.

The only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that it will take increasing outside pressure on Israel, in the form of boycotts, divestment and sanctions, to convince a sufficient number of that country’s Jewish population that they must change their ways. To not change is to acquiesce in Israel’s evolving status as a pariah state.

The irony of it all is that that status will have little to do with most of Israel being Jewish (that is, it will not be a function of anti-Semitism). Yet, it will have everything to do with the fact that, in this day and age, not even the Jews, who have been subjected to some of history’s worst acts of racism, have the right to maintain a racist state.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author ofForeign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National InterestAmerica’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

Howard Zinn: Lincoln and Emancipation

Historian Howard Zinn on Abraham Lincoln and the eventual abolition of slavery in the US. Which shows that Spielberg's new film, Lincoln, is far from historically accurate.

John Brown was executed by the state of Virginia with the approval of the national government. It was the national government which, while weakly enforcing the law ending the slave trade, sternly enforced the laws providing for the return of fugitives to slavery. It was the national government that, in Andrew Jackson's administration, collaborated with the South to keep abolitionist literature out of the mails in the southern states. It was the Supreme Court of the United States that declared in 1857 that the slave Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom because he was not a person, but property.

Such a national government would never accept an end to slavery by rebellion. It would end slavery only under conditions controlled by whites, and only when required by the political and economic needs of the business elite of the North. It was Abraham Lincoln who combined perfectly the needs of business, the political ambition of the new Republican party, and the rhetoric of humanitarianism. He would keep the abolition of slavery not at the top of his list of priorities, but close enough to the top so it could be pushed there temporarily by abolitionist pressures and by practical political advantage.

Lincoln could skillfully blend the interests of the very rich and the interests of the black at a moment in history when these interests met. And he could link these two with a growing section of Americans, the white, up-and-coming, economically ambitious, politically active middle class. As Richard Hofstadter puts it:

Thoroughly middle class in his ideas, he spoke for those millions of Americans who had begun their lives as hired workers-as farm hands, clerks, teachers, mechanics, flatboat men, and rail- splitters-and had passed into the ranks of landed farmers, prosperous grocers, lawyers, merchants, physicians and politicians.

Lincoln could argue with lucidity and passion against slavery on moral grounds, while acting cautiously in practical politics. He believed "that the institution of slavery is founded on injustice and bad policy, but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends to increase rather than abate its evils." (Put against this Frederick Douglass's statement on struggle, or Garrison's "Sir, slavery will not be overthrown without excitement, a most tremendous excitement") Lincoln read the Constitution strictly, to mean that Congress, because of the Tenth Amendment (reserving to the states powers not specifically given to the national government), could not constitutionally bar slavery in the states.

When it was proposed to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, which did not have the rights of a state that was directly under the jurisdiction of Congress, Lincoln said this would be Constitutional, but it should not be done unless the people in the District wanted it. Since most there were white, this killed the idea. As Hofstadter said of Lincoln's statement, it "breathes the fire of an uncompromising insistence on moderation."

Lincoln refused to denounce the Fugitive Slave Law publicly. He wrote to a friend: "I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down . .. but I bite my lips and keep quiet." And when he did propose, in 1849, as a Congressman, a resolution to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, he accompanied this with a section requiring local authorities to arrest and return fugitive slaves coming into Washington. (This led Wendell Phillips, the Boston abolitionist, to refer to him years later as "that slavehound from Illinois.") He opposed slavery, but could not see blacks as equals, so a constant theme in his approach was to free the slaves and to send them back to Africa.

In his 1858 campaign in Illinois for the Senate against Stephen Douglas, Lincoln spoke differently depending on the views of his listeners (and also perhaps depending on how close it was to the election). Speaking in northern Illinois in July (in Chicago), he said:

Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.

Two months later in Charleston, in southern Illinois, Lincoln told his audience:

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races (applause); that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.. . .

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Behind the secession of the South from the Union, after Lincoln was elected President in the fall of 1860 as candidate of the new Republican party, was a long series of policy clashes between South and North. The clash was not over slavery as a moral institution-most northerners did not care enough about slavery to make sacrifices for it, certainly not the sacrifice of war. It was not a clash of peoples (most northern whites were not economically favored, not politically powerful; most southern whites were poor farmers, not decisionmakers) but of elites. The northern elite wanted economic expansion-free land, free labor, a free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, a bank of the United States. The slave interests opposed all that; they saw Lincoln and the Republicans as making continuation of their pleasant and prosperous way of life impossible in the future.

So, when Lincoln was elected, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal base at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and four more states seceded. The Confederacy was formed; the Civil War was on.

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address, in March 1861, was conciliatory toward the South and the seceded states: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." And with the war four months on, when General John C. Fremont in Missouri declared martial law and said slaves of owners resisting the United States were to be free, Lincoln countermanded this order. He was anxious to hold in the Union the slave states of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware.

It was only as the war grew more bitter, the casualties mounted, desperation to win heightened, and the criticism of the abolitionists threatened to unravel the tattered coalition behind Lincoln that he began to act against slavery. Hofstadter puts it this way: "Like a delicate barometer, he recorded the trend of pressures, and as the Radical pressure increased he moved toward the left." Wendell Phillips said that if Lincoln was able to grow "it is because we have watered him."

Racism in the North was as entrenched as slavery in the South, and it would take the war to shake both. New York blacks could not vote unless they owned $250 in property (a qualification not applied to whites). A proposal to abolish this, put on the ballot in 1860, was defeated two to one (although Lincoln carried New York by 50,000 votes). Frederick Douglass commented: "The black baby of Negro suffrage was thought too ugly to exhibit on so grand an occasion. The Negro was stowed away like some people put out of sight their deformed children when company comes."

Wendell Phillips, with all his criticism of Lincoln, recognized the possibilities in his election. Speaking at the Tremont Temple in Boston the day after the election, Phillips said:

If the telegraph speaks truth, for the first time in our history the slave has chosen a President of the United States. . . . Not an Abolitionist, hardly an antislavery man, Mr. Lincoln consents to represent an antislavery idea. A pawn on the political chessboard, his value is in his position; with fair effort, we may soon change him for knight, bishop or queen, and sweep the board. (Applause)

Conservatives in the Boston upper classes wanted reconciliation with the South. At one point they stormed an abolitionist meeting at that same Tremont Temple, shortly after Lincoln's election, and asked that concessions be made to the South "in the interests of commerce, manufactures, agriculture."

The spirit of Congress, even after the war began, was shown in a resolution it passed in the summer of 1861, with only a few dissenting votes: "... this war is not waged . . . for any purpose of... overthrowing or interfering with the rights of established institutions of those states, but... to preserve the Union."

The abolitionists stepped up their campaign. Emancipation petitions poured into Congress in 1861 and 1862. In May of that year, Wendell Phillips said: "Abraham Lincoln may not wish it; he cannot prevent it; the nation may not will it, but the nation cannot prevent it. I do not care what men want or wish; the negro is the pebble in the cog-wheel, and the machine cannot go on until you get him out."

In July Congress passed a Confiscation Act, which enabled the freeing of slaves of those fighting the Union. But this was not enforced by the Union generals, and Lincoln ignored the nonenforcement. Garrison called Lincoln's policy "stumbling, halting, prevaricating, irresolute, weak, besotted," and Phillips said Lincoln was "a first-rate second-rate man."

An exchange of letters between Lincoln and Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, in August of 1862, gave Lincoln a chance to express his views. Greeley wrote:

Dear Sir. I do not intrude to tell you-for you must know already-that a great proportion of those who triumphed in your election ... are sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing with regard to the slaves of rebels,... We require of you, as the first servant of the Republic, charged especially and preeminently with this duty, that you EXECUTE THE LAWS. ... We think you are strangely and disastrously remiss . .. with regard to the emancipating provisions of the new Confiscation Act....

We think you are unduly influenced by the councils ... of certain politicians hailing from the Border Slave States.

Greeley appealed to the practical need of winning the war. "We must have scouts, guides, spies, cooks, teamsters, diggers and choppers from the blacks of the South, whether we allow them to fight for us or not.... I entreat you to render a hearty and unequivocal obedience to the law of the land."

Lincoln had already shown his attitude by his failure to countermand an order of one of his commanders, General Henry Halleck, who forbade fugitive Negroes to enter his army's lines. Now he replied to Greeley:

Dear Sir: ... I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. .. . My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . .. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours. A. Lincoln.

So Lincoln distinguished between his "personal wish" and his "official duty."

When in September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, it was a military move, giving the South four months to stop rebelling, threatening to emancipate their slaves if they continued to fight, promising to leave slavery untouched in states that came over to the North:

That on the 1st day of January, AD 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward and forever free. . . .

Thus, when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued January 1, 1863, it declared slaves free in those areas still fighting against the Union (which it listed very carefully), and said nothing about slaves behind Union lines. As Hofstadter put it, the Emancipation Proclamation "had all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading." The London Spectator wrote concisely: "The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

Limited as it was, the Emancipation Proclamation spurred antislavery forces. By the summer of 1864, 400,000 signatures asking legislation to end slavery had been gathered and sent to Congress, something unprecedented in the history of the country. That April, the Senate had adopted the Thirteenth Amendment, declaring an end to slavery, and in January 1865, the House of Representatives followed.

With the Proclamation, the Union army was open to blacks. And the more blacks entered the war, the more it appeared a war for their liberation. The more whites had to sacrifice, the more resentment there was, particularly among poor whites in the North, who were drafted by a law that allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft for $300. And so the draft riots of 1863 took place, uprisings of angry whites in northern cities, their targets not the rich, far away, but the blacks, near at hand. It was an orgy of death and violence. A black man in Detroit described what he saw: a mob, with kegs of beer on wagons, armed with clubs and bricks, marching through the city, attacking black men, women, children. He heard one man say: "If we are got to be killed up for Negroes then we will kill every one in this town."

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in human history up to that time: 600,000 dead on both sides, in a population of 30 million-the equivalent, in the United States of 1978, with a population of 250 million, of 5 million dead. As the battles became more intense, as the bodies piled up, as war fatigue grew, the existence of blacks in the South, 4 million of them, became more and more a hindrance to the South, and more and more an opportunity for the North. Du Bois, in Black Reconstruction, pointed this out:

.. . these slaves had enormous power in their hands. Simply by stopping work, they could threaten the Confederacy with starvation. By walking into the Federal camps, they showed to doubting Northerners the easy possibility of using them thus, but by the same gesture, depriving their enemies of their use in just these fields....

It was this plain alternative that brought Lee's sudden surrender. Either the South must make terms with its slaves, free them, use them to fight the North, and thereafter no longer treat them as bondsmen; or they could surrender to the North with the assumption that the North after the war must help them to defend slavery, as it had before.

George Rawick, a sociologist and anthropologist, describes the development of blacks up to and into the Civil War:

The slaves went from being frightened human beings, thrown among strange men, including fellow slaves who were not their kinsmen and who did not speak their language or understand their customs and habits, to what W. E. B. DuBois once described as the general strike whereby hundreds of thousands of slaves deserted the plantations, destroying the Smith's ability to supply its army.

Black women played an important part in the war, especially toward the end. Sojourner Truth, the legendary ex-slave who had been active in the women's rights movement, became recruiter of black troops for the Union army, as did Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin of Boston. Harriet Tubman raided plantations, leading black and white troops, and in one expedition freed 750 slaves. Women moved with the colored regiments that grew as the Union army marched through the South, helping their husbands, enduring terrible hardships on the long military treks, in which many children died. They suffered the fate of soldiers, as in April 1864, when Confederate troops at Fort Pillow, Kentucky, massacred Union soldiers who had surrendered-black and white, along with women and children in an adjoining camp.

It has been said that black acceptance of slavery is proved by the fact that during the Civil War, when there were opportunities for escape, most slaves stayed on the plantation. In fact, half a million ran away- about one in five, a high proportion when one considers that there was great difficulty in knowing where to go and how to live.

The owner of a large plantation in South Carolina and Georgia wrote in 1862: "This war has taught us the perfect impossibility of placing the least confidence in the negro. In too numerous instances those we esteemed the most have been the first to desert us." That same year, a lieutenant in the Confederate army and once mayor of Savannah, Georgia, wrote: "I deeply regret to learn that the Negroes still continue to desert to the enemy."

A minister in Mississippi wrote in the fall of 1862: "On my arrival was surprised to hear that our negroes stampeded to the Yankees last night or rather a portion of them.... I think every one, but with one or two exceptions will go to the Yankees. Eliza and her family are certain to go. She does not conceal her thoughts but plainly manifests her opinions by her conduct-insolent and insulting." And a woman's plantation journal of January 1865:

The people are all idle on the plantations, most of them seeking their own pleasure. Many servants have proven faithful, others false and rebellious against all authority and restraint. .. . Their condition is one of perfect anarchy and rebellion. They have placed themselves in perfect antagonism to their owners and to all government and control.. . . Nearly all the house servants have left their homes; and from most of the plantations they have gone in a body.

Also in 1865, a South Carolina planter wrote to the New York Tribune that

the conduct of the Negro in the late crisis of our affairs has convinced me that we were all laboring under a delusion.... I believed that these people were content, happy, and attached to their masters. But events and reflection have caused me to change these positions.. .. If they were content, happy and attached to their masters, why did they desert him in the moment of his need and flock to an enemy, whom they did not know; and thus left their perhaps really good masters whom they did know from infancy?

Genovese notes that the war produced no general rising of slaves, but: "In Lafayette County, Mississippi, slaves responded to the Emancipation Proclamation by driving off their overseers and dividing the land and implements among themselves." Aptheker reports a conspiracy of Negroes in Arkansas in 1861 to kill their enslavers. In Kentucky that year, houses and barns were burned by Negroes, and in the city of New Castle slaves paraded through the city "singing political songs, and shouting for Lincoln," according to newspaper accounts. After the Emancipation Proclamation, a Negro waiter in Richmond, Virginia, was arrested for leading "a servile plot," while in Yazoo City, Mississippi, slaves burned the courthouse and fourteen homes.

There were special moments: Robert Smalls (later a South Carolina Congressman) and other blacks took over a steamship, The Planter, and sailed it past the Confederate guns to deliver it to the Union navy.

Most slaves neither submitted nor rebelled. They continued to work, waiting to see what happened. When opportunity came, they left, often joining the Union army. Two hundred thousand blacks were in the army and navy, and 38,000 were killed. Historian James McPherson says: "Without their help, the North could not have won the war as soon as it did, and perhaps it could not have won at all."

What happened to blacks in the Union army and in the northern cities during the war gave some hint of how limited the emancipation would be, even with full victory over the Confederacy. Off- duty black soldiers were attacked in northern cities, as in Zanesville, Ohio, in February 1864, where cries were heard to "kill the nigger." Black soldiers were used for the heaviest and dirtiest work, digging trenches, hauling logs and camion, loading ammunition, digging wells for white regiments. White privates received $13 a month; Negro privates received $10 a month.

Late in the war, a black sergeant of the Third South Carolina Volunteers, William Walker, marched his company to his captain's tent and ordered them to stack arms and resign from the army as a protest against what he considered a breach of contract, because of unequal pay. He was court-martialed and shot for mutiny. Finally, in June 1864, Congress passed a law granting equal pay to Negro soldiers.

The Confederacy was desperate in the latter part of the war, and some of its leaders suggested the slaves, more and more an obstacle to their cause, be enlisted, used, and freed. After a number of military defeats, the Confederate secretary of war, Judah Benjamin, wrote in late 1864 to a newspaper editor in Charleston: ". . . It is well known that General Lee, who commands so largely the confidence of the people, is strongly in favor of our using the negroes for defense, and emancipating them, if necessary, for that purpose. . . ." One general, indignant, wrote: "If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong."

By early 1865, the pressure had mounted, and in March President Davis of the Confederacy signed a "Negro Soldier Law" authorizing the enlistment of slaves as soldiers, to be freed by consent of their owners and their state governments. But before it had any significant effect, the war was over.

Former slaves, interviewed by the Federal Writers' Project in the thirties, recalled the war's end. Susie Melton:

I was a young gal, about ten years old, and we done heard that Lincoln gonna turn the niggers free. Ol' missus say there wasn't nothin' to it. Then a Yankee soldier told someone in Williamsburg that Lincoln done signed the 'mancipation. Was wintertime and mighty cold that night, but everybody commenced getting ready to leave. Didn't care nothin' about missus - was going to the Union lines. And all that night the niggers danced and sang right out in the cold. Next morning at day break we all started out with blankets and clothes and pots and pans and chickens piled on our backs, 'cause missus said we couldn't take no horses or carts. And as the sun come up over the trees, the niggers started to singing: Sun, you be here and I'll be gone
Sun, you be here and I'll be gone
Sun, you be here and I'll be gone
Bye, bye, don't grieve after me
Won't give you my place, not for yours
Bye, bye, don't grieve after me
Cause you be here and I'll be gone.
 

Anna Woods:

We wasn't there in Texas long when the soldiers marched in to tell us that we were free. ... I remembers one woman. She jumped on a barrel and she shouted. She jumped off and she shouted. She jumped hack on again and shouted some more. She kept that up for a long time, just jumping on a barrel and back off again.

Annie Mae Weathers said:

I remember hearing my pa say that when somebody came and hollered, "You niggers is free at last," say he just dropped his hoc and said in a queer voice, "Thank God for that."

The Federal Writers' Project recorded an ex-slave named Fannie Berry:

Niggers shoutin' and clappin' hands and singin'! Chillun runnin' all over the place beatin' time and yellin'! Everybody happy. Sho' did some celebratin'. Run to the kitchen and shout in the window:

"Mammy, don't you cook no more.

You's free! You's free!"

Many Negroes understood that their status after the war, whatever their situation legally, would depend on whether they owned the land they worked on or would be forced to be semislaves for others. In 1863, a North Carolina Negro wrote that "if the strict law of right and justice is to be observed, the country around me is the entailed inheritance of the Americans of African descent, purchased by the invaluable labor of our ancestors, through a life of tears and groans, under the lash and yoke of tyranny."

Abandoned plantations, however, were leased to former planters, and to white men of the North. As one colored newspaper said: "The slaves were made serfs and chained to the soil. . . . Such was the boasted freedom acquired by the colored man at the hands of the Yankee."

Under congressional policy approved by Lincoln, the property confiscated during the war under the Confiscation Act of July 1862 would revert to the heirs of the Confederate owners. Dr. John Rock, a black physician in Boston, spoke at a meeting: "Why talk about compensating masters? Compensate them for what? What do you owe them? What does the slave owe them? What does society owe them? Compensate the master? . . . It is the slave who ought to be compensated. The property of the South is by right the property of the slave. . . ."

Some land was expropriated on grounds the taxes were delinquent, and sold at auction. But only a few blacks could afford to buy this. In the South Carolina Sea Islands, out of 16,000 acres up for sale in March of 1863, freedmen who pooled their money were able to buy 2,000 acres, the rest being bought by northern investors and speculators. A freedman on the Islands dictated a letter to a former teacher now in Philadelphia:

My Dear Young Missus: Do, my missus, tell Linkum dat we wants land - dis bery land dat is rich wid de sweat ob de face and de blood ob we back. . . . We could a bin buy all we want, but dey make de lots too big, and cut we out.

De word cum from Mass Linkum's self, dat we take out claims and hold on ter um, an' plant um, and he will see dat we get um, every man ten or twenty acre. We too glad. We stake out an' list, but fore de time for plant, dese commissionaries sells to white folks all de best land. Where Linkum?

In early 1865, General William T. Sherman held a conference in Savannah, Georgia, with twenty Negro ministers and church officials, mostly former slaves, at which one of them expressed their need: "The way we can best take care of ourselves is to have land, and till it by our labor. . . ." Four days later Sherman issued "Special Field Order No. 15," designating the entire southern coastline 30 miles inland for exclusive Negro settlement. Freedmen could settle there, taking no more than 40 acres per family. By June 1865, forty thousand freedmen had moved onto new farms in this area. But President Andrew Johnson, in August of 1865, restored this land to the Confederate owners, and the freedmen were forced off, some at bayonet point.

Ex-slave Thomas Hall told the Federal Writers' Project:

Lincoln got the praise for freeing us, but did he do it? He gave us freedom without giving us any chance to live to ourselves and we still had to depend on the southern white man for work, food, and clothing, and he held us out of necessity and want in a state of servitude but little better than slavery.

The American government had set out to fight the slave states in 1861, not to end slavery, but to retain the enormous national territory and market and resources. Yet, victory required a crusade, and the momentum of that crusade brought new forces into national politics: more blacks determined to make their freedom mean something; more whites-whether Freedman's Bureau officials, or teachers in the Sea Islands, or "carpetbaggers" with various mixtures of humanitarianism and personal ambition-concerned with racial equality. There was also the powerful interest of the Republican party in maintaining control over the national government, with the prospect of southern black votes to accomplish this. Northern businessmen, seeing Republican policies as beneficial to them, went along for a while.

The result was that brief period after the Civil War in which southern Negroes voted, elected blacks to state legislatures and to Congress, introduced free and racially mixed public education to the South. A legal framework was constructed. The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The Fourteenth Amendment repudiated the prewar Dred Scott decision by declaring that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" were citizens. It also seemed to make a powerful statement for racial equality, severely limiting "states' rights."

Excerpted from A People's history of the United States.

The 9/11 Plan: Cheney, Rumsfeld and the “Continuity of Government”

cheney2

“If a mandarinate ruled America, the recruiting committee on September 11 would have had to find someone like Cheney.” Washington Post author Barton Gellman in his book “Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency”

Terrorism. Emergency plans. Political careers. The history of 9/11 can be written from many angles.

But whatever point of view is chosen, Dick Cheney is a central figure. “Principle is okay up to a certain point”, he once said, “but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination”. He´s surely an elusive character. Not less than Donald Rumsfeld, his close companion. Both of their lifes are inseperably bound with a dark side of recent American history. The core of the following story was originally told by the authors James Mann and Peter Dale Scott whose thorough research is deeply appreciated. Yet a lot of background information was added. Thus a bigger picture slowly took shape, showing a plan and its actors …

Cheney and Rumsfeld were an old team. Major parts of their careers they had spent together. Both had no privileged family background. Cheney´s father worked as an employee for the department of agriculture, Rumsfeld´s father had a job in a real estate company. The families´ living conditions were modest. Both sons could go to university only with the backing of scholarships.

Rumsfeld, born 1932, chose political science. He was a rather small and sturdy person, but with energetic charisma. While at university he engaged in sport and was known as a succesful ringer. Later Rumsfeld went to the Navy to become a pilot. The Navy hat paid a part of his scholarship. At the end of the 1950s he eventually started his career in politics as assistant of a congressman. Meanwhile father of a young family, and following a short intermezzo at an investment bank, Rumsfeld himself ran for Congress, at the age of 29 only.

Getting backing

The prospects in his Chicago home district were unfavorable. He was inexperienced and almost without any voter base, compared to the other candidates. But the dynamic and ambitious Rumsfeld impressed some of Chicago´s business leaders, such as the boss of pharma heavyweight Searle. They paid for his campaign. With this economic power in his back also one of Chicago´s newspapers supported him. Rumsfeld won the election in 1962 and went to Washington as a republican representative.

At the beginning of the 1960s he visited lectures at the University of Chicago, where Milton Friedman was teaching, one of the most influental economists of his time. Friedman was one of the founding fathers of neoliberalism. He called for less influence of the state and praised the self regulation of the markets. In 1962 his bestseller Capitalism and Freedom was published. Rumsfeld was impressed by these thoughts. In a speech honoring Friedman 40 years later he remembered: “Government, he has told us, has three primary functions: It should provide for the military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. And it should protect citizens against crimes against themselves or their property.” (1) This self-imposed restriction of politics was also the core of Rumsfeld´s belief while he served in Congress in the 1960s.

An apprentice in politics

Cheney, 9 years younger than Rumsfeld, meanwhile studied political science as well. First at Yale, where he left soon because of poor grades, then at a less prestigious university in the Midwest. Contrary to the forceful Rumsfeld he appeared rather defensive, quiet and cautious. His imminent recruiting to the Vietnam war he avoided by getting defered from military service because of his study at the university and the pregnancy of his wife, until he couldn´t be recruited because of his age in 1967.

At the age of 27 Cheney was looking for a job in Washington. He applied for an internship at Rumsfeld´s office. But Rumsfeld rejected him. The failed interview was embarassing for Cheney who in later times liked to tell the story of this flop as an anecdote. But soon both men found together.

Under president Nixon, Rumsfeld had switched in 1969 from Congress to government. First he ran the Office of Economic Opportunity. There he administered federal social programs – not exactly one of his major concerns, but still one step forward in career. Rumsfeld was looking for new staffers to pass on work. By recommendation of a befriended representative he employed Cheney as his assistant. Cheney was a diligent worker and quickly made himself indispensable. Whoever wanted something from Rumsfeld, learned soon to try it via Cheney.

Rumsfeld´s career developed. People started becoming aware of him nationwide. He looked good, was energetic and had a catching smile. His intelligence was outstanding. But he also liked to exaggerate and escalate conflicts and often was unnecessarily blunt to others. Soon he became president Nixon´s advisor (who would praise him as a “ruthless little bastard”). Three years later he went to europe becoming NATO´s ambassador there – escaping from Washington shortly before the Watergate affair would kill the careers of many of Nixon´s advisors.

Tasting power

In the mid of the 1970s politics in America went through a time of upheaval. The economy was in crisis. With the lost war in Vietnam, nationwide student protests and Watergate the leadership of the superpower showed internal signs of decay, culminating in Nixon´s resignation in 1974. Successor Gerald Ford appointed Rumsfeld to become chief of staff with Cheney shadowing him closely as his deputy.

Now both men had arrived in the centre of power. The position of chief of staff was seen as highly influential in the White House. He was the closest advisor to the president, controlled his schedule and also decided who would meet him. After Nixon, Watergate and the extensively publicly discussed CIA scandals the new administration had to fight with a damaged reputation. This difficult situation, with a relatively weak president, increased the importance of the chief of staff.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were partners now and had great influence on president Ford. When he reshuffled his cabinet abruptly in 1975 in the so-called “Halloween massacre”, firing among others the CIA director and the secretary of defense, many suspected Rumsfeld being the wirepuller. Fact was at least that he and Cheney were profiteering.

Rumsfeld now took over the command at the Pentagon. There he started expensive and prolonged defense projects like the Abrams tank and the B-1 bomber, building economic impact for decades. At the same time the 34 years old Cheney moved up to become chief of staff in the White House. Now he was no longer only assistant but an authority with relevant beliefs. One of his rules went: “Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination.” (2)

Revolving doors

However soon just that happened. After the defeat of the Republicans in 1976 both men dropped out of government. Together with their families they spent holidays with each other in the Caribbean. Rumsfeld remembers the relaxing break with pleasure: “We played Tennis, boated, and spent time in the sun talking about life. Cheney grilled steaks and made chili.” (3)

Back home Cheney started capitalizing his Washington insider knowledge by working for a consulting company, helping wealthy clients with their investment decisions. But soon he returned to politics. At the end of the 1970s he went as elected Congressman to the House of Representatives. Yet the stress and pressure had their effect on the cautious and restrained Cheney – at age 37 he suffered his first heart attack.

Rumsfeld on the other hand found his new place for a longer time in private business. Dan Searle, the Chicago pharma magnate who had financed his first election campaign 15 years before, now entrusted him his whole company, appointing him to Searle´s CEO. Financially Rumsfeld climbed to new heights with that job. As CEO he got 250.000 Dollars a year, about four times more than as secretary of defense. (4) And also in his new job he made no half measures. Within short time Rumsfeld fired more than half of the employees, generating a huge increase in corporate profit. The business newspapers praised him as an outstanding manager.

In the 1980s the Republicans came back to power with Ronald Reagan. The new president conjured up the threatening picture of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and increased military spending. The Cold War gained new momentum.

The Armageddon Plan

At this time the White House also developed a secret emergency plan, put in action however only at September 11th, 2001 for the first time. Initially it should guarantee that the government could continue its operations even after a Soviet nuclear strike. The plan was called COG (Continuity of Government) and called for a very special emergency measure: when disaster struck, three teams should be sent to different places in the country, replacing the government. Each team would have an own “president” as well as other people standing in for the different departments and government agencies. If one team would be killed, the next one could be activated. So the planners hoped to keep control over the military and the most important parts of the administration, after an atomic bomb or another disaster had wiped out the government in Washington. (5)

These worries about a possible “decapitation” of the national leadership were deemed very seriously because exactly this course of action was also part of the U.S. war strategy towards the Soviets. (6)

The COG plan existed not only on paper. It was exercised in reality regularly in the 1980s. Once a year the teams, each consisting of a “president”, a “chief of staff” and about 50 staffers, were secretly flown from Washington to a closed military base or a bunker somewhere in the United States. There they played the emergency scenario for several days. Not even their closest relatives knew about the location or purpose of the exercise. (7)

Richard Clarke, later anti-terror coordinator under the presidents Clinton and Bush junior, recalls one of the maneuvers at that time:

 ”I remember one occasion where we got the call. We had to go to Andrews Air Force Base and get on a plane and fly across the country. And then get off and run into a smaller plane. And that plane flew off into a desert location. And when the doors opened on the smaller plane, we were in the middle of a desert. Trucks eventually came and found us and drove us to a tent city. You know, this was in the early days of the program. A tent city in the middle of the desert — I had no idea where we were. I didn’t know what state we were in. We spent a week there in tents, pretending that the United States government had been blown up. And we were it. It’s as though you were living in a play. You play-act. Everyone there play-acts that it’s really happened. You can’t go outside because of the radioactivity. You can’t use the phones because they’re not connected to anything.” (8)

Part of every team was one authentic secretary, leading a government department also in real life. He had to play the president. Yet his real life portfolio didn´t matter – at one point even the secretary of agriculture played the president. In the end the secretary taking part in the exercise was usually just the one being dispensable. Apparently more important was the role of the chief of staff. This part was routinely played only by a person who had been White House chief of staff also in real life. (9)

+Therefore Rumsfeld and Cheney were regular participants of the secret annual COG exercises. Other attendants described them as being involved in shaping the program. (10) So at a time when the two men had no position whatsoever in government (Rumsfeld, as mentioned, was boss of a pharma company, Cheney was congressman), both of them disapeared every year for a few days to practice the take-over of the government after a disaster.

Above the law

The plan was secret also because it bypassed the constitution. Since the presidential succession was already explicitly fixed by law: if the president died, the vice president took over, then followed by the speaker of the house, after him the longest serving senator, then the secretaries of state, treasury, defense and so forth. However the COG plan simply ignored this well balanced constitutional arrangement. In an emergency it called instead for a president who was not democratically legitimized at all.

The plan was authorized with a secret directive by president Reagan. According to his security advisor Robert McFarlane Reagan personally decided who would lead the individual teams. The COG liaison officer in charge inside the National Security Council was Oliver North, who later became known as the key person in the center of the Iran-Contra scandal. (11)

Only incidentally, in connection with that scandal, the first details of the secret plan came to light in 1987. Under president Reagan Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North had coordinated a series of steps building in effect a shadow government, Congress didn´t know about, let alone having approved it. The Miami Herald wrote about this in 1987: “Oliver North helped draw up a controversial plan to suspend the Constitution in the event of a national crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad. (…) From 1982 to 1984, North assisted FEMA, the U.S. government’s chief national crisis-management unit, in revising contingency plans for dealing with nuclear war, insurrection or massive military mobilization.” (12)

That the COG plan, suspending the constitution, could indeed not only be activated in case of a nuclear war, was laid out in a further directive authorized by Reagan in the last days of his presidency in November 1988. According to this directive the plan should be executed in a “national security emergency”, defined rather vague as a “natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States”. (13) In effect this meant a massive undermining of democratic principles. The COG plan, executed unter the circumstances mentioned, could also be used as cover for a coup d’état.

Meanwhile Cheney and Rumsfeld went on secretly exercising the take-over of the government during their annually running maneuvers. Belonging to this inner circle of potential state leaders had to be an uplifting feeling for both men. In case of a huge disaster the fate of the nation would lie in their hands.

Reach for the presidency

At the end of the 1980s Cheney moreover had climbed to the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, the elite network connecting business leaders and politicians, well known for its huge influence on American foreign policy. In the meantime Rumsfeld had become a multimillionaire through the sale of the pharma company he had led. He planned running for the presidency in 1988. But his campaign didn´t succeed. From the outset Reagan´s vice president Bush senior had been the republican frontrunner – and finally also won the election.

But now Cheney got his chance. He became secretary of defense in the new administration, the same position Rumsfeld had already held 12 years before. Cheney successfully managed the first Iraq war in 1991, which led – parallel to the decline of the Soviet Union – to a permanent deployment of U.S. troops in the oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The control over Iraq was now in reach.

After the defeat of the Republicans in 1992 Cheney also considered an own presidential campaign. Yet soon he had to realize that he lacked support. Instead he moved to the private sector, becoming CEO of Halliburton, one of the world´s biggest oil supply companies. As secretary of defense he already had build connections to the firm, leading later to multi-billion-dollar contracts with the Pentagon. The new job now also filled Cheney´s pockets, making him a multimillionaire as well.

Meanwhile Rumsfeld had established himself as a highly effective and ambitious business executive. In the 1990s he first led a telecommunications company, then a pharma corporation.

The COG plan still existed, however with other presumptions. After the fall of the Soviet Union it no longer focused on the Russian nuclear threat, but on terrorism. Though it was reported in the mid 1990s that president Clinton wanted the program to phase out, it later became clear that this announcement only applied to the portion of the plan relating to a nuclear attack. (14) Then anti-terror coordinator Richard Clarke later disclosed that he had updated the COG plan in 1998. (15) The corresponding presidential directive (PDD-67) was secret. Its precise content was never made public. (16)

Cold War reloaded

At the same time a circle of neoconservatives around Rumsfeld and Cheney prepared for return to power. At the end of the 1990s they founded an organisation called “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC). Their self declared desire: “increase defense spending significantly” and “challenge regimes hostile to our interests”. (17)

In parallel Rumsfeld headed a congressional commission assessing the threat of foreign long range missiles. Already in the 1980s Ronald Reagan had started plans for a national missile defense, which burdened the national budget over the years with about 50 billion dollars. Yet in the 1990s even the own intelligence agencies saw no longer a real threat. Because who should fire missiles on Washington in the near future? Yeltsin´s Russia? Or China, that became economically more and more interdependent with the United States? However the so-called “Rumsfeld Commission” revised the assessment of the intelligence agencies. In its 1998 published report new possible aggressors were named: North Korea, Iran and Iraq. (18)

The same year Rumsfeld and his PNAC associates had already written an open letter to president Clinton, urging him to be tougher on Iraq. Saddam Hussein´s regime should be “removed”, the letter demanded. (19)

Finally, in September 2000, two month before the presidential election, PNAC published a lengthy strategy paper, giving policy guidance to the next administration. “Rebuilding America´s Defenses” was its programmatic title and it analysed principles and objections of a new defense policy.

Basically the paper called for a massive increase in defense spending and a transformation of the armed forces into a dominant but mobile, rapidly deployable power factor. The aim was enduring military supremacy, which according to PNAC would urgently require new weapons systems like the missile defense. Yet the paper made also clear that the process of implementing these demands would be a long one and provoke resistance, “absent” – quote – “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” (20)

A question of energy

After George W. Bush´s inauguration in January 2001 the members of this circle secured important posts in the new administration. Cheney turned into the leading figure. This had become apparent well before the election. As early as April 2000 Bush had asked him to handle the selection of his vice presidential running mate. In the end Cheney had all but proposed himself for the job. (21) Meanwhile the workaholic had survived three heart attacks. One of his first recommendations to Bush was the appointment of Rumsfeld, almost 70, as secretary of defense. Deputy of his old associate became Paul Wolfowitz, a hardliner who had already worked for Cheney as chief strategist in the Pentagon at the beginning of the 1990s. Compared to these men president Bush himself was a newcomer in Washington. Though he was blessed with political instinct and a very practical intuition, he could hardly hold a candle to these old hands intellectually.

One of the first steps of the new administration was the creation of a “National Energy Policy Development Group”. It was headed directly by Cheney. Its final report, issued in May 2001, described the situation quite openly:

“America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. (…) A fundamental imbalance between supply and demand defines our nation´s en­ergy crisis. (…) This imbalance, if allowed to continue, will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living, and our national security. (…) Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent, natural gas consumption by well over 50 percent, and demand for elec­tricity will rise by 45 percent. If America´s energy production grows at the same rate as it did in the 1990s we will face an ever-in­creasing gap. (…) By 2020, Gulf oil producers are projected to supply between 54 and 67 percent of the world´s oil. Thus, the global economy will almost certainly continue to depend on the supply of oil from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members, particularly in the Gulf. This region will remain vital to U.S. interests.” (22)

Later it was disclosed that Cheney´s energy task force had also secretly examined a map of the Iraqi oil fields, pipelines and refineries along with charts detailing foreign suitors for il-field contracts there. Again, the date was March 2001.

Anticipating the unthinkable

Concurrently to its effort in energy policy the new administration created an “Office of National Preparedness”. It was tasked with the development of plans responding to a possible terror attack and became assigned to the “Federal Emergency Management Agency” (FEMA). (23) FEMA was already responsible for the COG plan since the 1980s. To call it back to mind: “From 1982 to 1984, Oliver North assisted FEMA in revising contingency plans for dealing with nuclear war, insurrection or massive military mobilization.” (24)

Back then Cheney had played a role in shaping these plans. Now he could continue the work – because Bush appointed him to head the new program. (25) Director of FEMA on the other hand became Joe Allbaugh, who had little professional expertise, but could offer other qualities. Allbaugh was Bush´s campaign manager, a man for tough and rather rude matters and also one of the president´s closest confidants. Back in 1994 he had managed Bush´s campaign to become governor of Texas and at the end of 2000 he had helped stopping the recount of votes in Florida. (26) That an expert for political tricks was appointed to head FEMA indicates that the administration had political plans with the emergency management agency from the outset.

Till today it´s undisclosed how the COG plan was refined in detail under Cheney´s direction in 2001.  However the following is apparent: in the months leading to 9/11 Cheney linked anti-terror and emergency management measures with national energy policy. Commissions working on both issues were handled by him simultaneously. This connection anticipated the policy after 9/11, which could be summarized as using a terror attack as rationale for extending the power of the executive and waging war to seize control of world regions important for energy supply.

The emergency plans Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved with since the 1980s culminated in autumn 2001. On the morning of September 11th the secret COG program was implemented for the first time. (27) Shortly before 10:00 a.m., after the impact of the third plane into the Pentagon, Cheney gave the order to execute it. (28)

The shadow government

Almost nothing is known about the content of the plan and the specific effects of its activation. The secrey in this respect appears grotesque. Even the simple fact of the plan´s implementation on 9/11 was concealed for months. After sporadic hints in the press the Washington Post finally disclosed some details in March 2002. In an article titled “Shadow government is at work in secret” it reported that about 100 high-ranking officials of different departments were working outside Washington as part of the emergency plan since 9/11:

“Officials who are activated for what some of them call ‘bunker duty’ live and work underground 24 hours a day, away from their families. As it settles in for the long haul, the shadow government has sent home most of the first wave of deployed personnel, replacing them most commonly at 90-day intervals. (…) Known internally as the COG, for ‘continuity of government’, the administration-in-waiting is an unannounced complement to the acknowledged absence of Vice President Cheney from Washington for much of the past five months. Cheney’s survival ensures constitutional succession, one official said, but ‘he can´t run the country by himself.’ With a core group of federal managers alongside him, Cheney – or President Bush, if available – has the means to give effect to his orders.” (29)

But what orders gave Cheney to his strange “shadow government” while his stays at the bunker? And what justified extending this emergency measure for seemingly infinite time? For the White House clearly hadn´t been wiped out by bombs. The president lived and his administration was able to act. Who needed a permanent second secret government?

After the first disclosure of these facts in spring 2002 leading politicians of the legislative immediately started expressing their astonishment. Soon it became clear that neither Senate nor House of Representatives knew anything about the activation of COG and the work of the “shadow government” in secret. The parliament had simply been ignored. (30) Later the 9/11 Commission experienced similar executive secrecy. Though it mentioned in its final report the implementation of the plan on 9/11, it also admitted not having investigated the issue in depth. Instead the Commission had only been briefed “on the general nature” of the plan. (31)

Patriots under pressure

An immediate response to 9/11 was the Patriot Act, passed only one month later, and allowing a broad range of highly controversial measures, from domestic wiretapping to warrantless detention of foreign terror suspects. The latter legalized the forthcoming procedures at Guantánamo, leading to secret U.S. prisons all over the world.

Two influential opponents of these legal changes were Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader, and Patrick Leahy, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both received letters with spores of deadly anthrax. The source was never traced with certainty. After that Daschle and Leahy gave up their resistance against the new legislation and approved the Patriot Act. (32)

In their radical nature the hastily passed changes bore resemblance to decrees while a state of emergency. And indeed were they similarly already part of the COG plan in the 1980s. (33)

Government officials familiar with COG indicated after 9/11 that the plan could really have resulted in martial law – if additionally to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon also large numbers of congressmen and executive branch leaders had been killed on that day. (34)

Is it in this context a coincidence only that the fourth hijacked plane on 9/11 was heading towards Washington to hit the Capitol or the White House? (35)

Killers from Sudan?

There is also circumstantial evidence for an assassination attempt on president Bush in Florida that morning. The Secret Service had received a related warning the night before at 4:08 a.m., according to a TV report by a local ABC affiliate. (36) A few hours later Secret Service agents searched an apartment in Sarasota and arrested four men from Sudan, apparently belonging to the south sudanese liberation army SPLA, a paramilitary force secretly supported by the United States. (37) Also AP reportet these arrests mentioning that the suspects had been released soon again because they had “no connection” to 9/11. The whole issue just would have been a “coincidence”. (38)

President Bush spent the night before 9/11 at a resort on Longboat Key, an island right next to Sarasota where he planned to visit an elementary school on the next morning. Longboat Key Fire Marshall Carroll Mooneyhan was a further witness of the possible assassination attempt. He said that at about 6 a.m. on September 11th a van with self-proclaimed reporters of middle eastern descent had pulled up at Bush´s resort, stating they had a “poolside” interview with the president. The men asked for a special Secret Service agent by name but where turned away by the guards. (39)

Were these “reporters” identical with the Sudanese temporarily arrested by the Secret Service later that morning in Sarasota? The incident resembled at least the successful assassination of Taliban foe Ahmed Shah Massoud two days before on September 9th in Afghanistan. The suicide attackers there were also a fake TV team using a bomb hidden in a camera, as the New York Times reported on September 10th. (40)

Additionally three witnesses remembered seeing Mohammed Atta and a companion at Longboat Key´s Holiday Inn on September 7th, three days before Bush would spend the night on that same small island. (41) September 7th was also the day the White House first publicly announced Bush´s schedule to travel to Sarasota. (42) In this context it is surely worth to consider if Atta scouted out the place for an assassination plot.

Completing the plot

The question arises: Did a circle around Cheney, Rumsfeld and some associates use 9/11 for a disguised coup d’état, partly failed in its execution?

Regardless of the answer to that question – 9/11 in fact allowed the implementation of emergency measures, the weakening of the legislative, the start of several wars and a massive increase in defense spending. The amounts in question easily exceed the imagination of observers.

While in the second half of the 1990s the average national defense budget totaled about 270 billion dollars a year, that number nearly doubled in the decade after 9/11, when the average annual budget went up to over 500 billion. (43) For the Pentagon´s private contractors that meant a sales increase of inconceivable 2.300 billion dollars between 2001 and 2010.

A national economy under arms

If one looks at the development of defense spending in the United States since 1940, some far-reaching conclusions arise. (44) It seems as if the attack on Pearl Harbor and the following involvement in World War II led to a structural change of the American economy. The budgetary value of the military was never reduced to a “normal” level after that. On the contrary it increased decade by decade. Thus the whole economy got into a fatal dependency on the defense business.

This ongoing development came to a halt only with the fall of the Soviet Union. Ten years later then 9/11 became the catalyzing event to kick-start the military buildup again – with all its broad economic effects on the country.

Cheney and Rumsfeld don´t seem to be driving forces in this “game”, but merely two talented managers, risen to the top in the stream of events. Author James Mann, who had disclosed their involvement in the COG plan first in 2004, described their political role this way:

“Their participation in the extra-constitutional continuity-of-government exercises, remarkable in its own right, also demonstrates a broad, underlying truth about these two men. For three decades, from the Ford Administration onward, even when they were out of the executive branch of government, they were never far away. They stayed in touch with defense, military, and intelligence officials, who regularly called upon them. They were, in a sense, a part of the permanent hidden national-security apparatus of the United States, inhabitants of a world in which Presidents come and go, but America keeps on fighting.” (45)

 Notes

 (1)  US Department of Defense, 09.05.02, “Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld speaking at Tribute to Milton Friedman”

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=216

 (2)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 73

 (3)  Donald Rumsfeld, “Known and Unknown. A Memoir”, New York 2011, p. 240

 (4)  Ibid., p. 245

 (5)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, pp. 138-145

(6)  Ibid., p. 139

(7)  Ibid., p. 138

(8)  ABC, 25.04.04, “Worst Case Scenario – Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11″

http://web.archive.org/web/20040429063810/

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/armageddon_plan_040425.html

(9)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 140

(10)  Ibid., p. 138;

Washington Post, 07.04.04, “‘Armageddon’ Plan Was Put Into Action on 9/11, Clarke Says”, Howard Kurtz

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55877-2004Apr6

(11)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 142

(12)  Miami Herald, 05.07.87, “Reagan Aides and the ‚secret‘ Government”, Alfonso Chardy

http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

(13)  Peter Dale Scott, “The Road to 9/11. Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Berkeley 2007, p. 185;

Executive Order 12656 – “Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities”, 18.11.88

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html

(14)  Peter Dale Scott, “The Road to 9/11. Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Berkeley 2007, p. 186

(15)  Richard Clarke, “Against All Enemies. Inside America ́s War on Terror”, New York 2004, p. 167

(16)  PDD-NSC-67 – “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations”, 21.10.98

www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm

(17)  Project for the New American Century, 03.06.97, “Statement of Principles”

http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

(18)  New York Times, 16.07.98, “Panel Says U.S. Faces Risk Of a Surprise Missile Attack”, Eric Schmitt

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/16/us/panel-says-us-faces-risk-of-a-surprise-missile-attack.html

(19)  Project for the New American Century, 26.01.98, “Iraq Clinton Letter”

www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

(20)  Project for the New American Century, September 2000, “Rebuilding America´s Defenses”, p. 51

(21)  Barton Gellman, “Angler. The Cheney Vice Presidency”, New York 2008, Chapter 1

(22)  “National Energy Policy – Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group”, 16.05.01

(23)  White House press release, 08.05.01, “Cheney to Oversee Domestic Counterterrorism Efforts”

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_05/alia/a1050801.htm

(24)  Miami Herald, 05.07.87, “Reagan Aides and the ‚secret‘ Government”, Alfonso Chardy

http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

(25)  White House press release, 08.05.01, “Cheney to Oversee Domestic Counterterrorism Efforts”

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_05/alia/a1050801.htm

(26)  Peter Dale Scott, “The Road to 9/11. Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Berkeley 2007, p. 210

(27) 9/11 Commission Report, p. 38

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(28) “Brief Timeline of Day of 9/11 Events, drafted by White House”

www.scribd.com/doc/12992821/Brief-Timeline-of-Day-of-911-Events-drafted-by-White-House

Washington Post, 27.01.02, “America’s Chaotic Road to War”, Dan Balz and Bob Woodward

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801175_pf.html

(29)  Washington Post, 01.03.02, “Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret”, Barton Gellman and Susan Schmidt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060900891.html

(30)  Washington Post, 02.03.02, “Congress Not Advised Of Shadow Government”, Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26212-2002Mar1

(31)  9/11 Commission Report, p. 555

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(32)  Salon, 21.11.01, “Why Daschle and Leahy?”, Anthony York

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2001/11/21/anthrax/index.html

(33)  Miami Herald, 05.07.87, “Reagan Aides and the ‚secret‘ Government”, Alfonso Chardy

http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

(34)  ABC, 25.04.04, “Worst Case Scenario – Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11″

http://web.archive.org/web/20040429063810/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/armageddon_plan_040425.html

(35)  9/11 Commission Report, p. 14

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(36)  Daniel Hopsicker, “Welcome to Terrorland”, 2004, p. 42

(37)  Ibid., p. 44

(38)  Ibid., p. 45

(39)  Longboat Observer, 26.09.01, „Possible Longboat terrorist incident – Is it a clue or is it a coincidence?“, Shay Sullivan

http://web.archive.org/web/20030220064542/http://www.longboatobserver.com/showarticle.asp?ai=1874

(40)  New York Times, 10.09.01, „Taliban Foe Hurt and Aide Killed by Bomb“

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/10/world/taliban-foe-hurt-and-aide-killed-by-bomb.html

(41)  Longboat Observer, 21.11.01, „Two hijackers on Longboat?“, Shay Sullivan

http://web.archive.org/web/20021209013255/

http://www.longboatobserver.com/showarticle.asp?ai=2172

(42)  White House, 07.09.01, „Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer“

http://web.archive.org/web/20010913052601/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010907-1.html#week

(43)  US Office of Management and Budget, “Table 3.1 – Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2016″

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

(44)  Ibid.

(45)  The Atlantic, March 2004, “The Armageddon Plan”, James Mann

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-14.htm

James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 145

Mubarak-Like Moves as Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi Declares ‘State of Emergency’

Following an extended weekend of protests from its liberal and more secular opponents, the Egyptian government of President Mohamed Morsi on Sunday—in a move reminiscent of the former Mubarak regime—declared "states of emergency" in cities across the country, suspending normal governance and imposing a de facto martial law.

Riot police officers arrest a protester opposing Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, who threw stones at riot police during clashes, along Qasr Al Nil bridge, which leads to Tahrir Square in Cairo. (Credit: REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany) Al-Jazeera reports that clashes continued Monday for the fifth consecutive day and that state police forces "fired tear-gas at protesters in downtown Cairo, just hours after Morsi declared a state of emergency and a curfew in three Suez Canal cities."

The Egypt Independent reports:

In a speech broadcast live on state TV, Morsi said he made these decisions after reviewing the Constitution, and that while he does not want to take extraordinary measures, he has been forced to do so, given the situation.

He added that if violence continues, he would be forced to take stricter measures to protect the country.

This is the first time for Morsi to take such measures, particularly the state of emergency, which will be enforced starting at midnight.

Egypt was ruled under an emergency law for 30 years under ousted President Hosni Mubarak. The state of emergency gives police ultimate powers to question or detain citizens and was seen as a tool of Mubarak’s repression. The military council that ruled the country during its post-revolution transition lifted the law in May 2011.

Al-Jazeera video:

____________________

“The American Military Coup of 2012″: Encroachment upon Basic Freedoms, Militarized Police State in...

THE COUP OF 2012: Encroachment upon Basic Freedoms, Militarized Police State in America

Back in 1992 the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff held a “Strategy Essay Competition.”

The winner was a National War College student paper entitled, “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.” Authored by Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. the paper is a well documented, “darkly imagined excursion into the future.”

The ostensibly fictional work is written from the perspective of an imprisoned senior military officer about to be executed for opposing the military takeover of America, a coup accomplished through “legal” means. The essay makes the point that the coup was “the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992,” including “the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses,” particularly law enforcement.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/1992/1992%20dunlap.pdf

Dunlap cites what he considered a dangerous precedent, the 1981 Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act, an act that sanctioned US military engagement with law enforcement in domestic “support operations,” including “civil disturbance” operations. The act codified the lawful status and use of military “assets” in domestic police work. 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-18

Encroachment upon Basic Freedoms

Since that time the American people have been subject to a series of deeper and deeper encroachments upon our basic freedoms, increasingly extensive deployment of military operations on the home front, perpetrated by a corporate driven military mission creep that now claims the right and duty to arrest and detain us on the word of a Pentagon or White House operative. President Obama’s signing of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) whose Section 1021 sanctions the military detention of American citizens without charge, essentially aims to put the last nail in the coffin of our Constitution, our teetering Republic and our most basic democratic traditions.

The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration (“you can trust me”) would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course (of course) shortly before Congress voted on the final bill, which the President signed on the 31st of December 2011, a day that will go down in infamy.

“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.” According to Senator Dianne Feinstein. “Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge,” she said. “We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge.” Think again. (Guardian, 12/14/11)

Under the legislation, suspects can be held without trial  ”until the end of hostilities.” They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue. A spokesperson for Human Rights Watch implied that the signing of such a bill by a President would have once been unthinkable, noting that “the paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people’s minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is.” Further, “it wasn’t asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs.”

In fact, the heads of several “security agencies,” including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. Even some within the Pentagon itself said they were against the bill. No matter, and no matter the intention inherent in lip service opposition, the corporate elite who drive the disastrous and inhumane polices of this country see it otherwise, and they, not the generals or anyone else, call the shots!

And they’ve been at this for some time. A persistent and on-gong counter-insurgency directed against the American people, the detention provisions embedded in the NDAA are about more than “social control.” It amounts to a direct attack on the person, an “unreasonable search and seizure” in the cause of maintaining the shaky capitalist ship of state; suppressing popular resistance, dissent and protest, movements of peace and justice, recast as “civil disorder,” “civil disturbance” and “domestic terror.”

Current U.S. military preparations for suppressing “civil disturbance” and “domestic terrorism” including the training of National Guard troops, local police and the authorization of massive surveillance, are part of a long history of American “internal security” measures dating back to the first American Revolution. Generally, these measures have sought to thwart the aims of social justice movements, embodying the concept, promulgated by elite sectors intent on maintaining their grip on the levers of state; that within the civilian body politic lurks an enemy that one day the military might have to fight; or at least be ordered to fight. (See: Army Surveillance in America, 1775-1980, Joan M. Jensen, Yale University Press, 1991)

Thus, in reaction to a period of social upsurge flush with movements of liberation, justice and peace, and the mounting of powerful campaigns which threatened the status quo and elite control, the US military’s stand alone apparatus for conducting “civil disturbance suppression” operations, including detention, was born, immediately on the heels of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in April 1968.

The Garden Plot Operation

US Military Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, code-named Operation Garden Plot, follows, as was mentioned, in the footsteps of a long tradition of US military involvement in the suppression of dissent. Intriguingly, the Garden Plot operation is cited in documents related to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. (See: Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King, William Pepper, Carroll and Graf, 1995)

http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/Other/GARDEN_PLOT_DoD_Civil_DisturbancePlan.pdf

http://www.911truth.org/osamas/morales.html

Currently, the Garden Plot operation is centered at the Pentagon’s Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). “Stood up” in 2002, (though In the works prior to 9/11), NORTHCOM, America’s “domestic military command,” is tasked with various “counter-terror,” “homeland defense” and “homeland security” activities, including “civil disturbance suppression” operations, and “assisting law enforcement” within Canada, the United States and Mexico. http://www.northcom.mil/

Under NORTHCOM, Operation Garden Plot functions, with the US Army as “executive agent,” as “ConPlan 2502.” In two parts, the “con plan” is officially listed as: United States Northern Command, Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 3501 (formerly 2501), Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), dated 11 April 2006; and the United States Northern Command, Concept Plan 3502 (formerly 2502), Defense Support of Civil Authorities for Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO), 23 January 2007.

As noted above, the latest development in the Pentagon’s evolving mission of suppressing, at the behest of it’s corporate “civilian” overseers, a detention provision, is buried within the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 signed by President Obama in the fog (grog) of this past New Years Eve.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

NDAA 2012

Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012 seemingly allows (the language is evasive) for the detention (without trial or charges) of American citizens redefined by the “executive” elite as “enemy combatants” in the so-called “war on terror, ” a “war” which has become in the eyes of many, a war against the Constitution and civil liberties, a war against the disenchanted, fed-up and dissenting American public, spearheaded by a militarized police state allied to imperial military courts and “tribunals,” buttressed and rationalized with mind-bending mil-speak of “enemy combatants,” “unlawful combatants,” “enemy belligerents,” “homeland battlefield” “domestic extremists” “domestic terrorists” and the like.

And yet, behind all the sophistry, lies and manipulation, the brutal truth is obvious: The corporate elite that directs things has seen fit to unleash it’s military on it’s own people in a desperate attempt to suppress the democratic (read: protest) rights of it’s citizenry, us! Why? Simple: the paranoia of the thief, the well founded fear that knows that forced deprivation and scarcities, violence at home and abroad, rooted in greed, has run it’s course in America. And they are right! And so, it makes ominous sense that we are confronted with the horrific machinations of forced detention for those who resist a “new world order” come home in a “homeland” which opportunistically collapses all distinction between dissent and terrorism, police and military, right and wrong, obfuscating the truth of who the real terrorists are!

When Congress passed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), it included provisions that authorized U.S. armed forces to detain persons who are captured in the conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”

Section 1021 entitled “AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE” allows for the President (whoever that may be) “to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force … to detain covered persons …pending disposition under the law of war.”

“A covered person,” according to the edict’s malleable lingo, is “any person … who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks …” or, who “was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban,” or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

Accordingly, “the disposition of a person under the law of war” will include “detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities …” Now, by stating that “nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” and that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States,” it would appear that the law exempts American citizens from the threat of detention. Correct?

Detention is a Booming Industry

Don’t be too confident. Detention is a booming industry. In 2006 the Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International reported that Halliburton off-spring, “global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellogg, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency.” The $385 million dollars over 5 year contract “is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers” building “temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.” Could the 2012 NDAA / Section 1021 be such a “new program?”

There has been some confusion over what Section 1021 actually means, and that in and of itself is cause for concern. Congressional spokespeople have stated that the provisions of NDAA 2012 / Sec 1021 do not provide any “new authority” to detain U.S. citizens or others who may be captured in the United States. Obama waffled likewise in the lead up to his signing the provision. Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, ho-hummed and said that, “we are simply codifying existing law.” But that was an evasion, since existing law, like it or not, regarding the detention of U.S. persons in the “war on terror” is indeterminate in important respects. And “indeterminate” is not good enough!

A recent report from the Congressional Research Service fleshes out the law of detention as set forth in Section 1021, identifying what is known to be true as well as what is unsettled and unresolved. It is perfectly clear, for example, that a U.S. citizen who fights alongside “enemy forces” against the United States on a foreign battlefield could be lawfully detained. This was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42337.pdf

On the other hand, the CRS report explains, “the President’s legal authority to militarily detain terrorist suspects apprehended in the United States has not been definitively settled.” Nor has Congress helped to settle it. “This bill does not endorse either side’s interpretation,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, “but leaves it to the courts to decide.”

So, if a detention of a U.S. person does occur, the CRS said, “it will be up to a court to determine Congress’s intent when it enacted the AUMF [the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force], or alternatively, to decide whether the law as it was subsequently developed by the courts and executive branch sufficiently established that authority for such detention already exists.”

Up to now, “lower courts that have addressed questions the Supreme Court left unanswered have not achieved a consensus on the extent to which Congress has authorized the detention without trial of U.S. persons as ‘enemy combatants,’ and Congress has not so far clarified its intent.”

Well, it is certainly reassuring that a New York court has sought to clarify it’s intent on the matter. On May 16, 2012 a newly appointed federal district judge, Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued a ruling, hailed by many, which preliminarily enjoins (prohibits) enforcement of the indefinite detention provisions (Sec 1021) of the NDAA 2012.

http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/12-Civ.-00331-2012.05.16-Opinion-Granting-PI.pdf

The “temporary restraining order” came as a result of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs — including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Birgitta Jonsdottir — alleging that the NDAA violated both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. “The government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [Section] 1021,” Judge Forrest said in her ruling. “Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years.”

Where it will go from here is anybodies guess. Judge Forrest’s ruling was not permanent. A day after the ruling, the Wall Street Journal, for it’s part, offered it’s sour grapes, pontificating that the ruling “will be overturned on appeal,” while “its reasoning needs to be deconstructed so it doesn’t do more harm in the meantime.” A week later, on the 25th, federal prosecutors from Obama’s Department of Justice, calling Judge Forrest’s ruling “extraordinary,” suggested that she lift the injunction, claiming further that her ruling only effects those plaintiffs named and not other potential or future targets of the draconian legislation.

http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/12-Civ.-00331-2012.05.25-Govt-Motion-for-Reconsideration.pdf

Well, a few days ago on June 6th the upright Judge Forrest responded with an 8 page, “memorandum and opinion” in which she sought to “eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order’s scope.” (New York Times, “Detention Provision is Blocked” 6/7/12). And as to whom and for whom her original order was intended: “The May 16th order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court – or by Congress.” That’s clear enough!

So, as it stands now now, although Judge Forrest’s decision may temporarily protect Americans from provision 1021, it remains to be seen what the higher courts do should Obama’s people appeal. And unfortunately, Judge Forrest’s ruling, as praiseworthy as it is, does nothing to spare both foreign reporters and civilians from a life of imprisonment, let alone the more than 6 billion citizens of foreign nations who can still be handcuffed and hauled away to a US military prison without ever being brought to trial.

So, bottom line, given the indeterminate nature of a law that would snatch us up off the streets, throw away the key, and grant us little or no access to a trial let alone legal counsel of choice not vetted by the Pentagon, we should have no illusions that we are well along the slippery indeterminate slope to a full blown militarized police state; the complete identification, coordination and consolidation of the police and military function in America in the interests of an elite who regard us as the enemy, maybe even their property! Maybe even as targets for assassination!

Naked violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution

We should recall, that the current attempt by the executive to designate American citizens for detention without trial; a naked violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure and the guarantee of a trial, was preceded by the administration’s “resolve” to assassinate at will Americans abroad, place them on a “kill list,” and eliminate them. According to the New York Times “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will,” (5/29/12) the President and his advisors have made it clear that they have the authority “to order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial.”

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel rationalized such a move in “a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.” (New York Times, “Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen,” 10/8/11) Accordingly, after a dubious period of “internal deliberations,” Mr. Obama gave his approval, and the cleric Anwar al-Awlak was assassinated in September 2011, along with an associate Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the target list but happened to be traveling with Mr. al-Awlak. Apparently, campaign rhetoric and public demeanor to the contrary, when asked what surprised him most about Mr. Obama, Mr. Donilon, the national security adviser, answered immediately: “He’s a president who is quite comfortable with the use of force on behalf of the United States.”

The Posse Comitatus Act

How did we get here? We need to recognize that the “massive diversion of military resources” into domestic law enforcement for the purposes of suppressing dissent and worse has a long history, a history that has witnessed the steady evisceration of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, the sole federal statute that criminalizes military incursions into the domain of domestic law enforcement. The Act is the backbone of our democratic republican tradition of separating the military and police function in this country and represents the ultimate bulwark against military dictatorship in the interests of the rich. That is the reason it is and continues to be attacked, ridiculed and ignored by elements in both the corporate and military spheres. For example, “Current Obstacles to Fully Preparing Title 10 Forces for Homeland Defense and Civil Support” by Commander James S. Campbell, United States Navy, May 2008 and, “The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Law Enforcement Title” by COL (Ret) John R. Brinkerhoff, December 2004, both seek to delegitimize and undercut the status and importance of the Act, a law so critical to the maintenance of our freedoms, and yet, a law about which most Americans remain unaware.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487235

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/docs/10-16/ch_11.asp

The 1878 Act, 18 USC § 1385 – USE OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE AS POSSE COMITATUS, more popularly known as The Posse Comitatus Act, reads as follows:

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, wilfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a Posse Comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

As noted, the 1981 Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement law would seemingly violate the spirit if not the letter of this Act. Nonetheless, like a slowly boiling pot relentlessly eating away at our freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression, the utilization of military assets, under cover of law enforcement to suppress our democratic rights has proceeded steadily by design, virtually un-noticed.

Historical milestones: eating away at our freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression

A very limited listing of some historical milestones:

* In 1968, as mentioned above, concurrent with the creation of the Federal Commission on Civil Disorder, better known as the Kerner Commission, the Pentagon hatched it’s very own “civil disorder” operation. “US Military Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2,” code named “Garden Plot,” coordinates, until this day, all aspects of “civil disturbance suppression” in America, including the use of so-called “non-lethal weapons” during conveniently designated domestic “operations other than war” (OOTW), and “military operations in urban terrain” (MOUT), a “war” which pits “non-combatant” citizens and protesters (overwhelmingly non-violent) against militarized police on the streets of America.

* Only a few months after the round up and detention of 7,000 anti-war protesters in Washington DC, imprisoned in RFK stadium, an early Garden Plot operation, the 1971 Non-Detention Act was passed, specifically to repeal portions of the 1950 “anti-communist” “Emergency Detention Act” which had allowed for detention of suspected subversives without the normal Constitutional checks required for imprisonment. The Non-Detention Act required specific Congressional authorization for such detention. It reads that, “no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” In recent years, the statute has been used to challenge military detainment of U.S. citizens accused of terrorist activity, as in the case of Jose Padilla.

http://www.jenner.com/system/assets/assets/5417/original/18.pdf?1321652398

A Congressional Research Service report on the history of the Non-Detention Act noted that, “legislative debate, committee reports, and the political context of 1971 indicate that when Congress enacted Section 4001(a) it intended the statutory language to restrict all detentions by the executive branch, not merely those by the Attorney General.” Further, “lawmakers, both supporters and opponents of Section 4001(a), recognized that it would restrict the President and military authorities.”

As for the Padilla case, the Supreme Court of the United States originally took the 2004 case of Rumsfeld v. Padilla to decide the question of whether Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorized the President to detain a U.S. citizen, which would run afoul of the Non Detention Act. But it did not give an answer, instead ruling that the case had been “improperly filed.” And so the issue, as to whether and under what circumstances the military can pick you up, detain and imprison you, without charging you, from the point of view the Supreme Court, remains “unsettled.”

* Also in 1971, the California Specialized Training Institute (CSTI) was created. Headed up by Louis Giuffrida, formerly of Army Combat Command, the first director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), CSTI introduced the Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) concept, offering courses on “civil disorder management” for select “militarized” police and National Guard units armed and trained for domestic operations in the urban centers of America. During this period the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) facilitated federal funding and other military largess to the burgeoning militarized sectors of the domestic police forces along with training of selected National Guard units. Still in operation, CSTI is currently headed up by William J. Hatch Colonel, USA (RET), while funding for militarizing local police departments these days is facilitated by the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, funding which has increased drastically since 9/11.

http://americaswarwithin.org/articles/2011/12/21/local-police-stockpile-high-tech-combat-ready-gear

* In 1975 the Trilateral Commission, a Western European, Japanese, US corporate think-tank convened by David Rockefeller, issued a report entitled, “The Crisis of Democracy.” (NYU Press, 1975) Authored by none other than Samuel  Huntington. (“Clash of Civilizations”). Huntington’s book is a blueprint for the on-going counter-revolution in America, emphasizing the elite requirement of suppressing democratic “insurgency,” the “distemper” of the 60s, a “distemper” that according to Huntington, stemmed from an “excess of democracy.” The only and final solution therefore is to “moderate” and “shrink democracy,” concluding that, “there are potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.”

http://www.wrijneveld.nl/Boekenplank/BoekenVanAanhangersVanDeNieuweWereldOrde/1975-TC-The-Crisis-of-Democracy.pdf

* In 1983, the US Army published Field Manual 3-19-15, Civil Disturbance Operations (since updated in 2005). The manual addresses civil disturbance operations in both continental United States (CONUS) and outside continental United States (OCONUS). It states that, “today, United States (US) forces are deployed on peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and humanitarian assistance operations worldwide. During these operations, US forces are often faced with unruly and violent crowds intent on disrupting peace and the ability of US forces to maintain peace. Worldwide instability coupled with increasing US military participation in peacekeeping and related operations requires that US forces have access to the most current doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”

“In addition to covering civil unrest doctrine for CONUS operations, FM 3-19.15 addresses domestic unrest and the military role in providing assistance to civil authorities requesting it for civil disturbance operations …The principles of civil disturbance operations, planning and training for such operations, and the TTP [“tactics, techniques and procedures”] employed to control civil disturbances and neutralize special threats are discussed in this manual. It also addresses special planning and preparation that are needed to quell riots in confinement facilities are also discussed. In the past, commanders were limited to the type of force they could apply to quell a riot. Riot batons, riot control agents, or lethal force were often used. Today, there is a wide array of nonlethal weapons (NLW) available to the commander that extends his use of force along the force continuum. This manual addresses the use of nonlethal (NL) and lethal forces when quelling a riot.” And as noted, the training is meant to be operative in both foreign and domestic contexts, the war abroad, the war at home.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf

* In 1986, the Pentagon issues Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, or DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials. US military involvement in domestic law enforcement is subsumed and rationalized under “doctrines” entitled Operations Other Than War (OOTW) and Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT), along with divisions known as Military Support to Law Enforcement Agencies (MSLEA) and Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/552505p.pdf

* In 1992 President Clinton’s Justice Department consolidated a partnership with the Pentagon in the area of “technology transfer.” The so-called “technology transfer agreements” allowed for the military to weaponize domestic police forces, further enhancing the growth of para-military “special forces” like “special units” in local police departments across the country, including “civil disturbance” units and training. The Clinton administration extended the police/military connection by mandating that the Department of Defense and its associated private industries form a partnership with the Department of Justice to “engage the crime war with the same resolve they fought the Cold War.” The program, entitled, “Technology Transfer From Defense: Concealed Weapons Detection,” (“Technology Transfer from Defense: Concealed Weapons Detection,” National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995), calls for the transfer of military technology to domestic police organizations to better fight “crime.” Previously, direct “transfers” of this sort were made only to friendly foreign governments. The Clinton directive enhanced and formalized direct militarization of domestic police forces.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39680373/The-Militarization-of-the-Police-by-Frank-Morales

Currently, Title XIV of an earlier NDAA in 2007 entitled, “Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions,” authorizes “the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders.” In other words, the law facilitates the “transfer” of the newest in so-called “crowd control” and surveillance technology to local militarized (politicized) police units.

* In 1993, the US Army and Marine Corps publish Domestic Support Operations Field Manual 100-19.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/fm100_19.pdf

* In 1994, the Department of Defense issued Directive 3025.12, Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances (MACDIS) that details the rationale and means (“tactics, techniques and procedures”) for suppressing dissent. It states that, “the President is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence under various conditions and circumstances. Planning and preparedness by the Federal Government and the Department of Defense for civil disturbances are important, do to the potential severity of the consequences of such events for the Nation and the population.”

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302512p.pdf

* In 1995, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an key elite “policymaker” headquartered in New York City, set up an “Independent Task Force on Nonlethal Weapons (NLW)” in order “to assess the current status of non-lethal weapons development and availability within the Department of Defense, in light of their potential to support U.S. military operations and foreign policy,” not to mention the suppression of dissent at home. The 16 member Task Force, which published its’ findings in 1999, was chaired by IBM executive Richard L. Garwin, CFR “Senior Fellow for Science and Technology.” Other members of the Task Force included CFR “military fellow” David Jones, United States Navy, Commander, Edward N. Luttwak, member, “National Security Study Group administered by the Department of Defense,” Edward C. Meyer, USA (Ret.), Chair of Mitretek Systems, formerly Chief of Staff, US Army, and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Janet and Christopher Morris, President/Vice President, M2 Technologies, Inc, members US Global Strategy Council.

The Director of the CFR task force on non-lethal “technologies” was W. Montaque Winfield, former Executive Officer to the Commander of the “Stabilization Force” stationed in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia. Also a 1998-9 CFR “military fellow,” Brigadier General Winfield, some of you might recall, was the deputy director for operations (DDO) in the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, who according to the 9/11 Commission, left his post that very morning to attend a “pre-scheduled meeting” and allowed a colleague who had only recently qualified to take over his position, to stand in for him. He didn’t return to his post until after the terrorist attacks had ended. http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=montague_winfield

The CFR had issued an earlier report on the subject of “non-lethal” weapons in 1995, and stated in the 1999 report that they had regrettably “found that the DoD has made only limited progress developing and deploying nonlethal weapons since 1995.” The CFR, offering a bit of a tongue lashing to it’s hired generals, considered the “shortfall” the result of a “continued lack of appreciation for NLW among civilian and military policymakers.” Taking a firm line, the CFR report recommends that, “senior civilian and military leaders should make NLW development a priority.” After all, “nonlethal weapons could give policymakers a more potent weapon than economic sanctions.” In fact, “used alone”, the report notes, “NLW could penalize civilian economies without high civilian casualties.” Looking for something between “diplomatic table thumping and outright annihilation,” the armchair corporate warriors at the CRR continued to pound away at the need for accelerated “non-lethal” R and D.

http://revoltrevolt.org/demilitarizethepolice/nonlethal.html

* Subsequently, on July 9, 1996, the Department of Defense complied, issuing Directive 3000.3, Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons. The Directive established Department of Defense policies and responsibilities for the development and employment of so-called “non-lethal weapons,” designating the Commandant of the Marine Corps as Executive Agent for the Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program. On July 1, 1997, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate was established to support the Executive Agent for Non-Lethal Weapons in the day-to-day management of the Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program putting the “best and the brightest” at work in designing soft-kill means (including neuro-weapons) of “crowd dispersal” and “social control” set within a strategy of so-called “low-intensity warfare” and “counter-insurgency.”

http://jnlwp.defense.gov/pdf/2011%20Public%20%20Release%20%20NLW%20Reference%20Book%20V1.pdf

http://www.zcommunications.org/electromagnetic-weapons-by-frank-morales

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-militarization-neuroscience

Recently, this past May 17, 2012 the DoD issued Instruction 3200.19. Entitled “Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) Human Effects Characterization,” the “instruction” “establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for a human effects characterization process in support of the development of NLW, non lethal technology and NLW systems.” It also establishes a “Human Effects Review Board,” which “scientifically” evaluates and quantifies levels of pain, calculating the most desirable “effects” in regard to the use of non-lethal force against non-combatants and protesters. In this regard, they receive a lot of assistance from their friends and associates in academia.

http://cryptome.org/dodi/dodi-3200-19.pdf

In 1997 Penn State University established the Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies. The Institute is “dedicated to providing a base of multidisciplinary knowledge and technology that supports development and responsible application of non-lethal options for both military and civilian law enforcement. “ The Institute is administered by Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory (ARL), under the direction and support of the University’s Office of the Vice President for Research. http://nldt2.arl.psu.edu/

Its Human Effects Advisory Panel sponsored a conference in September 2000, whose purpose was “to assess crowd behavior and the potential for crowd control … a leading core capability sought by the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Program.” Their 2001 report was entitled, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons.”

http://nldt2.arl.psu.edu/documents/crowd_control_report.pdf

Meanwhile, the University of New Hampshire’s Non-Lethal Technology Innovation Center (NTIC) was created by a grant from the DoD’s Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate about the same time “to effect the next generation of NL capabilities by identifying and promoting the development of innovative concepts, materials and technologies within the academic community.” Its “Society of Force Effectiveness, Analysis and Techniques” (FEAT) was “established to engage primary source scientists to share results and analyses from studies of applied force, whether physical, psychological, or emotional. The Society’s scope of interests includes the impact of non-lethal or less lethal force intervention on sustained attention; performance degradation due to fatigue or intentional distraction; compliance; vigilance; and stress resilience.” The Society, given its specific intent on affecting “motivational behavior,” is keen on identifying “disciplines that support the development of tools of behavioral modification through force (e.g., kinetic and electromagnetic energies, psychological operations).”

http://www.unh.edu/ntic/

* In August of 2001, the Pentagon issued Field Manual 3-19.40, Internment and Resettlement Operations. Explicating the role of military police engaged in law enforcement, including at the point of domestic detention activities set within the context of “emergency” support, the extensive manual covers detention policies and methodologies and the use of non-lethal weapons. Chapter 10, Sections 49-66 detail the nature of “emergency services” within the “continental United States,” explaining that “MP (military police) units assisting ES (emergency service) operations in CONUS involve DoD-sponsored military programs that support the people and the government at all levels within the US and its territories.” Classified as “domestic support,” the manual states that, “federal armed forces can be employed when …” in the face of a declared “emergency,” “state and local authorities do not take appropriate action.”

In that instance, FEMA would serve as “the single POC within the government.” With a nod to the Posse Comitatus Act the document goes on to state that, “the MP support to ES in CONUS varies significantly from other I/R (internment/resettlement) operations. The basic difference is that local and state governments and the federal government and its agencies have a greater impact and role in supporting and meeting the needs in an affected community.” “If tasked to set up and operate an I/R facility, the MP commander retains control of military forces under his command,” and can operate “in conjunction with local, state and federal law enforcement officials.”

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/a22.pdf

* September 11 provided the elite Project for a New American Century and their associates with the “new Pearl Harbor” they sought, as set forth in Rebuilding America’s Defenses (pg.51), a major consequence of which was the September 18, 2001 passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force or AUMF.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

The Pentagon can invade, occupy and destroy at will, pre-emptively (with little or no reason), anyone, anywhere in the world

This singular, presumably legal rationale for much of what we now endure, the AUMF substantiates the notion that the Pentagon can invade, occupy and destroy at will, pre-emptively (with little or no reason), anyone, anywhere in the world, any time it chooses. In addition, apparently as we now see, the AUMF gives the Pentagon and it’s covetous corporate directors justification for the military takeover of America itself and the detention of its people. Thus, the AUMF is cited by the peddlers of Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012.

The modern “military tribunal” structure, which is a major piece of the detention/repression apparatus, came into formal existence as a consequence of the 2002 Department of Defense Military Commission Order No.1, issued on March 21, 2002 by former president (war criminal) George W. Bush.

http://www.defense.gov/news/Mar2002/d20020321ord.pdf

The entire military commission/tribunal structure is a work in progress, or more precisely, a dynamic and strategic power play on the part of the rulers set in motion following 9/11; a “might makes right” gambit undertaken by the militarist directors in the smoke of 9/11. Like the so-called Patriot Act, it was forced down the throats of a submissive, clueless public, sufficiently softened by means of prime time terror, fear and panic. Taking two steps forward and one step back, the militarists act first and then rationalize (or more precisely have their employees in the Congress) baptize the move after the fact. Where do presidents like Dubya, and now Obama get the authority to issue such blanket, unilateral decrees, totalitarian “executive orders,” such as Obama’s “National Defense Preparedness Order” of this year, which would force us to work for the Pentagon? The answer: No where! They have no authority! Particularly to set up parallel systems of jurisprudence as a means of by-passing Constitutional protections. In historical fact, this approach has a parallel in earlier maneuvers of another former “executive,” Adolph Hitler. (see Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich, Ingo Muller, Harvard, 1991)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

Concurrent with the round-up of over a thousand people following the September 11 attack, many of whom are still being held, many in solitary confinement, with no charges being filed, President Bush signed in November 2001 an order, establishing military “tribunals” for those non-citizens, accused, anywhere, of “terrorist related crimes.” And now, with the NDAA, citizens might soon face the same fate. Just imagine some smug and starchy government lawyer arguing that “the right to equal protection,” a fundamental principle of both U.S. and international law, demands that Americans be detained too!

At the time (2001), the National Legal Aid & Defender Association stated that the Bush promulgated “military order” violated the constitutional separation of powers:

“It has not been authorized by the Congress and is outside the President’s constitutional powers … the order strips away a variety of checks and balances on governmental power and the reliability and integrity of criminal judgments… undermines the rule of law worldwide, and invites reciprocal treatment of US nationals by hostile nations utilizing secret trials, a single entity as prosecutor, judge and jury, no judicial review and summary executions.”

More recently, in October 2009, the U.S. Congress passed and Obama dutifully signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (2009 MCA), which remains in effect today, legalizing further, if you will, the naked power grab by the executive in behalf of the elite. Since then the “Office of Military Commissions” has been set up as a public relations/propaganda front for the dictatorship. It promises to “provide fair and transparent trials of those persons subject to trial by Military Commissions while protecting national security interests.” Kind of like Fox’s “fair and balanced” news reporting. http://www.mc.mil/

Finally, we should recall that the NDAA of past years, aside from providing the funding of vast sums for illegal and immoral wars, torture and assassination, has been the site of various embedded measures designed to further limit our democratic rights of free expression and assembly, which is the foundation of effective and meaningful dissent. One such measure dates back to 2007, to the then so-called John Warner NDAA, named after militarism’s best friend and sponsor of the iconic AUMF.

Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007″ (H.R.5122), was signed by George Bush on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony. It allowed the President to declare a “public emergency” and subsequently station troops anywhere in America, seizing control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.” Well, fortunately, a massive protest ensued and the sections of the law that allowed for such were eventually repealed in the midst of which Senator Pat Leahy commented that, “we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law.” Preparing to order the military onto the streets of America, the presumption is that some form of martial law would be in evidence. Note that the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is “martial law.”

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

The concept of martial rule, as distinct from martial law, is not written, and therefore is an eminently more workable arrangement for “law enforcement forces.” That’s because, as US Army Field Manual 19-15 points out, “martial rule is based on public necessity. Public necessity in this sense means public safety.” According to the manual (cited above), updated in 2005, U.S. state authorities “may take such action within their own jurisdictions.” And yet, “whether or not martial rule has been proclaimed, commanders must weigh each proposed action against the threat to public order and safety. If the need for martial rule arises, the military commander at the scene must so inform the Army Chief of Staff and await instructions. If martial rule is imposed, the civilian population must be informed of the restrictions and rules of conduct that the military can enforce.”

Now, respecting the power of free speech, the manual suggests that, “during a civil disturbance, it may be advisable to prevent people from assembling. Civil law can make it unlawful for people to meet to plan an act of violence, rioting, or civil disturbance. Prohibitions on assembly may forbid gatherings at any place and time.” And don’t forget, “making hostile or inflammatory speeches advocating the overthrow of the lawful government and threats against public officials, if it endangered public safety, could violate such law.”

Further, during civil disturbance operations, “authorities must be prepared to detain large numbers of people,” forcing them into existing, though expanded “detention facilities.” Cautioning that, “if there are more detainees than civil detention facilities can handle, civil authorities may ask the control forces to set up and operate temporary facilities.” Pending the approval of the Army Chief of Staff, the military can detain and jail citizens en masse. “The temporary facilities are set up on the nearest military installation or on suitable property under federal control.” These “temporary facilities” are “supervised and controlled by MP officers and NCOs trained and experienced in Army correctional operations. Guards and support personnel under direct supervision and control of MP officers and NCOs need not be trained or experienced in Army correctional operations. But they must be specifically instructed and closely supervised in the proper use of force.”

According to the Army, the detention facilities are situated near to the “disturbance area,” but far enough away “not to be endangered by riotous acts.” Given the large numbers of potential detainees, the logistics (holding, searching, processing areas) of such an undertaking, new construction of such facilities “may be needed to provide the segregation for ensuring effective control and administration.” It must be designed and “organized for a smooth flow of traffic,” while a medical “treatment area” would be utilized as a “separate holding area for injured detainees.” After a “detainee is logged in and searched,” “a file is initiated,” and a “case number” identifies the prisoner. In addition, “facility personnel also may use hospital ID tags. Using indelible ink, they write the case number and attach the tag to the detainees wrist. Different colors may be used to identify different offender classifications ”

Finally, if and when it should occur, “release procedures must be coordinated with civil authorities and appropriate legal counsel.” If the “detainee” should produce a writ of habeas corpus issued by a state court, thereby demanding ones day in court, the Army will “respectfully reply that the prisoner is being held by authority of the United States.”

In conclusion:

There is no question that the militarized police state, in all its myriad permutations has arrived. In fact, the militarizing of American cities and society as a whole proceeds apace in lock step (Cities Under Seige: The New Military Urbanism, Stephen Graham, 2010) with the racist, anti-immigrant “defense” of the borders, a veritable cash cow for military contractors, booming. The cities, the borders, so how bout the skies? Well, as this is being written, the latest 2013 NDAA discussions include a Senate Armed Services Committee call to allow drones to operate “freely and routinely” in America!

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_cr/sasc-uas.html

http://nacla.org/blog/2012/6/7/bringing-battlefield-border-wild-world-border-security-and-boundary-building-arizona

Meanwhile, the GAO has just issued a report to Congress entitled “DOD Should Reevaluate Requirements for the Selective Service System” which calls for an evaluation of Pentagon “manpower needs for the Selective Service System in light of current national security plans.” Such an evaluation would, the report notes, “better position Congress to make an informed decision about the necessity of the Selective Service System or any other alternatives that might substitute for it.”

http://cryptome.org/2012/06/gao-12-623.pdf

Yes indeed, the water is boiling. Not to mix metaphors, but it’s time to jump out of the frying pan and hopefully not into the fire, which I take to mean that we must confront and deconstruct, in a non-violent way, the increasing potential for far more violence and suppression of our basic freedoms. The handing over of our resources, lives, fortune and reputation to a clique of thieves and murderers dressed up as presidents, congress people and corporate military executives and underlings is to foster our continued enslavement to the perpetrators of injustice and genocide, here and broad, inequality and greed, here and abroad, and signals the political suicide for our republic. We have got to act to stop the police state and reassert the values of community, justice and equality in the councils of governance. And to do so we must dis-empower the militarists.

One thing we can do right now is to initiate organizing campaigns in neighborhoods and communities across the country aimed at the passing of Posse Comitatus-like legislation on the local and state level, encouraging dialogue on the de-militarization of our communities, and raising the human right to be free of the violation inherent in all forms of militarism. By removing all aspects of militarism from domestic policing, lock, stock and barrel, we can expand the terrain of dissent and begin to reclaim our country back from the economic vultures and parasites and their violent mercenaries who are killing this country and the world. But first we must criminalize, like the Posse Comitatus Act does, all military involvement in law enforcement.

Communities must organize to de-militarize their police

Communities must organize to de-militarize their police. By analyzing police budgets, cutting the “special ops” training and funding and weapons transfers that fuel the militarization of law enforcement, we will most certainly decrease the level of police violence directed against the citizenry, and bridge issues and communities concerned with the epidemic of racist “police brutality” and the burgeoning of militarized police forces, veritable occupation armies in communities of color across America.

Along with criminalizing the militarization of local police we must work to criminalize racial profiling on the part of the police, a practice (indoctrinated in soldiers) that provides naked justification for “stop and frisk” harassment and the murde

Friday Humor: Miniature Predator Drone Goes On Sale To Bipolar Public Reception

Just because there is a superficially-pacifist, yet supraficially genocidal, dictatorially-inclined egomaniac in every one of us, the moment the Maisto Fresh Metal Tailwinds 1:97 Scale Die Cast United States Military Aircraft - US Air Force Medium Altitude, Long Endurance, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) RQ-1 Predator went on loss at Amazon (we would say sale, but that would imply some probability of profit, which as even the hotdog guy, knows is never going to happen at AMZN), everyone scrambled to buy one.

However, only those first in line got one: everyone else was greeted by a "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock" sign. So what does one do: what one should have done in the first place before going for the one impulse purchase that can murder innocent children half way around the world courtesy of the latest iPad app "iKiller": read the customer reviews of course.

Below is a broad sample of the rather bipolar main street America response when faced with the opportunity of having the same great power, if not so great - or any - responsibility, as is given, by some 25% of the population (factoring for the 55% or so who don't vote) to the president of the USA, even if on a 1:97 scale.

First the big thumbs up:

By Raini Pachak

This is the best toy ever. Finally, I can pretend that I'm a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!
It's like I'm sitting right there in the White House with my very own kill list!

By Rambone

My son is very interested in joining the Imperial forces when he grows up. He says he's not sure if he wants to help police the homeland or if he wants to invade foreign countries. So I thought a new Predator drone toy would be a nice gift for him. These drones are used both domestically and internationally, to spy on people and assassinate them at the Emperor's discretion. He just loves flying his drone around our house, dropping Hellfire missiles on Scruffy, our dog. He kept saying that Scruffy was a terror suspect and needed to be taken out. I asked him if Scruffy should get a trial first, and he quoted Lindsay Graham, Imperial Senator: "Shut up Scruffy, you don't get a trial!" I was so proud. I think I'll buy him some video games that promote martial law for Christmas.

By Maurice Cobbs

You've had a busy play day - You've wiretapped Mom's cell phone and e-mail without a warrant, you've indefinitely detained your little brother Timmy in the linen closet without trial, and you've confiscated all the Super-Soakers from the neighborhood children (after all, why does any kid - besides you, of course - even NEED a Super-Soaker for self-defense? A regular water pistol should be enough). What do you do for an encore?

That's where the US Air Force Medium Altitude, Long Endurance, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) RQ-1 Predator from Maisto comes in. Let's say that Dad has been labeled a terrorist in secret through your disposition matrix. Rather than just arrest him and go through the hassle of trying and convicting him in a court of law, and having to fool with all those terrorist-loving Constitutional protections, you can just use one of these flying death robots to assassinate him! Remember, due process and oversight are for sissies. Plus, you get the added bonus of taking out potential terrorists before they've even done anything - estimates have determined that you can kill up to 49 potential future terrorists of any age for every confirmed terrorist you kill, and with the innovative 'double-tap' option, you can even kill a few terrorist first responders, preventing them from committing terrorist acts like helping the wounded and rescuing survivors trapped in the rubble. Don't let Dad get away with anti-American activities! Show him who's boss, whether he's at a wedding, a funeral, or just having his morning coffee. Sow fear and carnage in your wake! Win a Nobel Peace Prize and be declared Time Magazine's Person of the Year - Twice!

This goes well with the Maisto Extraordinary Rendition playset, by the way - which gives you all the tools you need to kidnap the family pet and take him for interrogation at a neighbor's house, where the rules of the Geneva Convention may not apply. Loads of fun!

By Jonathan D

Brown people around the world beware! Always ready to drop a few Hellfire's worth of freedom on unsuspecting civilian gatherings in various middle eastern nations, this Predator model is the perfect addition to any toy collection. Instead of just talking with your children about how our country conducts diplomacy by assassinating people we don't like along with whatever innocent bystanders may be in the blast radius, this Predator model allows for creative play acting and recreation of the murder scene itself. I was sorely disappointed to find out that it's now out of stock and I can't buy dozens more to add to the realism.

By Mr. Ronald M. Ayers

Like most children, my sons and daughters fantasize a lot about killing, usually their teachers and/or other kids at school. For a modest amount of money this toy allows them to take their fantasies to a new level. Instead of using a toy gun or knife or even a video game, this baby takes their blood lust over the top. Now, with a fleet of killer drones, mass genocide of third world peoples is possible for my little ones. As others have noted, a lack of bloodied bodies to go along with the drone is a problem. Perhaps the maker will see fit to remedy that problem in the future.

BTW, I first found about about the toy drones through my children's therapist. The kids have been torturing kittens and puppies and the wife and I sent them to a headshrinker to try to get them to transfer their murderous impulses to third world humans. Their therapist recommended this little gem of a toy. The kids are so excited by it, my son is even talking about joining the military when he turns 18 just so he can pilot a drone. Thank you Amazon for making this excellent product available so kids can experience the glory of killing.

By holmestim

I enthusiastically await the prospects of teaching my grandchildren how to promote Democracy from the comfort of my Desktop! Nothing like making church parking lots out of wedding parties and family events!

By Vanessa Carlisle

I bought this for my son and he spent countless, blissful hours simulating massacres of weddings, funerals, and other family gatherings of brown skinned foreigners! He even realized that if he circled the drone back around on the first responders, his effective kill rate soared! Neat-o!

Educationally, this toy can't be beat - inculcating a predilection for indiscriminate, imperialist violence against non-combatants from oppressed and marginalized communities is precisely in accordance with truly "American values!"

By Trilobyte

This is an awesome toy to instill a sense of exploration in your child. Geography of foreign lands will come naturally as you and your child act out imaginary strikes on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and many more! Combined with the optional targets, the wedding,the funeral and the dusty road with an American citizen and his son, you can act out these scenarios very realistically! Teaching the moral superiority and callous disregard for other people and nations has never been easier.

By Julia Nelson

The Maisto replica RQ-1 Predator satisfies the requirement for realism, accuracy and detail in manufacture alongside excellent of playability. The blister pack reminds us of the danger of choking, this attention to detail (especially when the Predator is used in dusty countries in the troubled Middle east) suggests that the Maisto marketing department have really done their homework. I bought ten of these for my boy because, as he so rightly says, "So many countries, so little time". He hasn't played with his Matchbox V2 Buzz Bomb once since he became a "Drone Operator". It's given him a real grasp of imperialism, murder of innocents, the art of war and the complex geography of the Middle East. Thank You Maisto, we look forward to your Cluster Bomb, Land Mine and Gas canister multi pack with anticipation hitherto unseen in the world of play.

By Gordon M. Wagner

The coolest detail about this toy are the small body fragments you can litter around your target area following a drone missile strike on a wedding party. THEN (this is where the real fun begins) you circle back in an hour and fire MORE missiles at the people rescuing survivors and mourning the dead! Sure if another country did such a thing we'd decry it as heinous terrorism, but when good Ol' Uncle Sam's finger is on the joystick, you can bet that we call what we hit our target, no matter what.

Seriously? This toy is inappropriate and ought to be removed from Amazon as soon as possible. If it hasn't occurred to you, "drone" murder is still murder. As in "war crime". As in "international tribunal".

ORDER NOW and get FREE packs of Cluster Bombs (banned by all countries except the US and Israel) as well as the latest 2013 assortment of Land Mines (also banned by international treaty except for the US and Israel).

By redpleb

Nothing teaches your kids about the fact that they may one day be the target of an extra-judicious execution by executive order via a flying death robot from the movie Terminator, then this beautiful piece of replica toy war crimes.

By Michael Liszewski

This model is a 100% accurate scale model, and you will likely be thrilled that the "for ages 3 and up" disclaimer only applies to those remotely flying the Predator, not its potential victims.

... and those not quite so enthusiastic:

By Defenestrate

I thought if I bought this, I could kill random people without facing justice. It doesn't work! It won't kill people, not even brown ones.

THIS IS AN EDUCATIONAL TOY AND I HOPE TO GOD THAT MY FELLOW MURCUN SHEEPLE LEARN SOMETHING FROM IT.

 

By sandinista death squad "sandinista death squad"

I thought this would come with "baseball cards" of American civilians living in other countries that I could target for termination, I had to satisfy myself by destroying everything in my house and giving up on everything I ever believed in, liberty, freedom, and due process!

By HDTV shopper "HDTV"

Whenever my 7-year-old takes his dose of psychotropic medication, he's always obsessed with First Person Shooter videogames. Boy, I want to thank Amazon for their patriotic act of making this MALE (awesome friggin' acronym, Maisto!) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) available. At first, when little Tommy unwrapped this gift from Santa, he said, "this blows," but when I informed him that this would give him an opportunity to blow up people "Who Hate Us For Our Freedoms," well, little Tommy just lit up.

Now, father and son sit in Little Tommy's tree fort, pretending we're in a 63-degree military installation in Tampa or New Mexico, toggling a joystick and doing some real "collateral damage" on women and children in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Yemen! It's a true bonding experience for father and son -- we're Real American Heroes, making up our own kill list and angling for that Nobel Peace Prize we so richly deserve for bringing Democracy to The Middle East and Africa! [...]

Plus, the real bonus is that I'm preparing Little Tommy for a future career. Let's face it -- our Congress has shipped all our manufacturing jobs to China, and Little Tommy is hopelessly addicted to psychotropic medication. His brain is fried, OK? So I thought he might have a great future with the TSA, groping other 7-year-olds or grandmothers at unconstitutional checkpoints, but considering there will be 30,000 REAL DRONES OVER THE SKIES OF THE U. S. OF A. by 2015, Little Tommy is actually preparing himself for the career of a lifetime by practicing to take out his fellow American citizens with a Hellfire missle. Hoowah! www. nowtheendbegins .com/blog/?p=8504

Look, I listen closely to everything the Brit Piers Morgan tells me. The Second Amendment right to own firearms is evil. So I've destroyed all of Little Tommy's toy guns. But piloting a killer drone is freaking awesome. I highly recommend that all you sheeple step up like me and be REAL American patriots. Turn in your guns, eat your GMO foods, drink your fluoride water, breathe in your chemtrails and BUY YOUR BOYS THIS AWESOME, AWESOME TOY for your kid! Remember -- they hate us for our freedoms. So we need to kill thousands of brown people we don't know remotely with the push of a button. Baba booey, y'all!

By Barry D. Berns

What's next, depleted uranium Play-doh? Yes, let's teach our children that endless war for the benefit of billionaire defense contractors and bankers is okay, that it's okay to kill unarmed civilians as long as it's in the name of "Democracy," that murdering innocent men, women and children is okay as long as it's the government telling you to murder them. I won't mention 9/11 "conspiracies," but isn't it obvious to all by now that war is a racket? Only the mega-rich profit from war while everyone else either suffers or dies. Oh yeah, let's arm and install those evil terrorists in Libya and Syria while we irradiate and/or sexually molest people at our airports to protect us from them. No wonder Al Qaeda has been called "Al CIA Duh." Of course, you need a nebulous "enemy" or boogeyman to fight an unending war. Orwell's "1984" was not supposed to be a book of prophecy.

In a word, disgusting.

By USS LIBERTY

My Ritalin®-fueled first grade son thought it would be so much fun to play "Drop the Hellfire missiles". But when he brought it to school, the taxpayer-funded armed guard overheard him say the word "Hellfire" during recess. The principal immediately assigned him to indefinite detention. Then she called the media, and shamed him at the national level. Now he's depressed and taking Zoloft®. Where did we go wrong? Oh well, at least my new husband and I can finally take that 7 million dollar vacation to Hawai'i! Talk about change... "Yes we did!"

By Gk Harris

A toy but it's still quite dangerous. My 7-year-old son launched this in the school playground and hit a Pakistani kid in the eye. These things just can't help themselves.

By Chai T. "texaschai

Disappointed in the price of this toy. Thought it would be paid for with my hard-working, middle-class, high tax rate taxes as the real ones are, but apparently not! Of course I'm kidding. There is no middle-class anymore.

By zc2012

DO NOT BUY THIS TOY! JUST MOVE TO PAKISTAN AND YOU WILL SEE THEM DROPPING BOMBS ON YOU.. AND IT ITS FREE! WELL NOT FREE... JUST PAID FOR BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER.

h/t Redpill

Your rating: None Average: 5 (15 votes)

A Little 2nd Amendment Night Humor

On occasion, truth is stranger than fiction; and in the somewhat surreal world in which we now inhabit, The Onion's perfect parody of where we are headed could have been lifted from any mainstream media front-page with little questioning from the majority of Americans. For your reading pleasure, the 62-year-old with a gun that is the last man standing between the American people and full-scale totalitarian government takeover.

Bailey, the last thing standing between the American people and a totalitarian state.

NORFOLK, VA—According to numerous reports, local 62-year-old Earl Bailey, who owns a shotgun and several boxes of ammunition, is currently the last bastion of defense between the United States of America and the federal government’s plot of a full-scale takeover.

Bailey, a recent retiree and a proud advocate of gun rights, has been confirmed by multiple sources as being a true patriot, and is, at present, the only person capable of preventing top-secret forces within the government from striking and forcefully coercing hundreds of millions of Americans to submit to a fascist and brutal New World Order.

Since the early 1990s, sources estimated the gun owner has staved off innumerable large-scale government threats, all from the center of his 12-acre ranch.

“It is every American’s right to be good and armed, and that’s a right that should always be protected,” said Bailey, now the sole American protecting the nation from the government’s hidden plot of disarming all citizens, gradually gaining control of the mass media, and installing martial law throughout the nation’s streets. “Our Founding Fathers intended for each and every one of us to protect ourselves from tyranny. That’s what America is all about.”

“What happens when the feds show up at your front door and start telling you how much meat you can eat or how to raise your kids?” continued the lifetime NRA member, brandishing the very weapon that now serves as the final hope of staving off a totalitarian state. “Is that the future you want?”

Bailey, who keeps his gun on his person at all times and regularly patrols his property in his truck, has reportedly struck dread into the very highest-ranking members of the U.S. government. According to sources, top government and military officials are fully aware that they remain unable to commence with their oppressive, systematic subjugation of the American populace as long as the 62-year-old owner of a rifle exists.

Additional reports confirmed that Bailey’s frequent practice of shooting his gun at empty bean cans in his backyard has repeatedly forced government officials to reassess both their ground and air strategies for the impending takeover.

“The way I see it, the Second Amendment’s been keeping this nation free and secure for well over 200 years,” Bailey said, valiantly standing in front of his home that is constantly being monitored by CIA agents and elite Special Forces operatives, who are told to maintain a safe distance from the formidable 62-year-old. “First they’ll come for our guns and next…well, shoot, I don’t really plan on ever seeing what the hell happens next.”

While the federal government is more than adequately prepared to begin the first phase of its plan of convoying Second Amendment adherents to newly established FEMA concentration camps, high-level members of the Obama Administration involved in the widespread conspiracy confirmed that they have been forced to resort to alternate methods due solely to Bailey’s heroics.

“As long as there’s someone like Earl out there with a gun and ammunition, we are unable to carry out our attack on America,” said Maxwell Caufield, a covert military leader in charge of the operation to turn the country into an authoritarian, one-party state wherein the basic rights of citizens are stripped away in order to create total government control. “Try as we did to spread our distorted gun control propaganda—claiming that it would protect innocent people across the country from needless deaths—the man just wouldn’t bite. There is simply nothing we can do about Earl and his gun, damn him.”

“You’ve got to hand it to him, really,” Caufield added. “If it weren’t for Earl, you’d be looking at a totally different country.”

Shock Claim: “The New Litmus Test Of Leadership In The Military Is If They...

Mac Slavo
January 22nd, 2013
SHTFplan.com

Read by 2,430 people

Had the following comments been made on a fringe corner of the internet most would dismiss them as outright conjecture. However, what you are about to read comes from one of the world’s foremost philanthropists, Jim Garrow, who has spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money to help over 35,000 Chinese baby girls from near certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy.

He was one of the 206 nominees for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, which was ultimately awarded to President Barack Obama.

Garrow, who has friends in high places, including the U.S. military, made a startling claim on his Facebook page Sunday, which if true, should leave no doubt about why the Obama administration is moving full force to seize firearms from law abiding Americans and why the US government’s law enforcement and security assets have been making preparations for years in anticipation of social breakdown and widespread civil unrest.

According to Garrow, the Obama administration has been rapidly retiring or re-assigning US military leaders based on a new ‘litmus test’ of their loyalty:

I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks.

“The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”.

Those who will not are being removed.

Dr. Jim Garrow – January 21, 2013

When pressed for the source of his information and asked why the senior military leader would not reveal his name, Garrow responded by saying, “I believe that the gentleman has done what he should and allowed all of us to sound the alarm.”

He revealed only that the man who shared this information, “is one of America’s foremost military heroes,” suggesting the source is a public figure.

Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars notes that this new ‘litmus test’ comes at a time when millions of Americans are already suspicious of the government’s motives behind a number of actions, including the most recent push to disarm the population:

Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny.

It also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

Would Jim Garrow put his reputation on the line by spreading a rumor or simply make this up to garner attention?

Or, is it possible that he does in fact have a high level military source who is privy to this information – someone who has himself been removed from his position because he didn’t pass the litmus test?

Should the Obama administration take Executive Actions against Americans in the event of a scenario where gun confiscation becomes reality or a collapse of our economic system leads to a complete meltdown of law and order on the streets of America, the administration would likely deploy military assets under martial law to subdue any uprisings or riots.

The only way this could be done is if military leaders are willing to command their subordinates to deploy against the American people and fire on them if necessary.

If Garrow’s claims are true, one can only shudder at the thought of what the end-game may be.

Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 2,430 people
Date: January 22nd, 2013
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Guest Post: A Message To The ‘Left’ From A ‘Right Wing Extremist’

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

A Message To The 'Left' From A 'Right Wing Extremist'

Some discoveries are exciting, joyful, and exhilarating, while others can be quite painful.  Stumbling upon the fact that you do not necessarily have a competent grasp of reality, that you have in fact been duped for most of your life, is not a pleasant experience.  While it may be a living nightmare to realize that part of one’s life was, perhaps, wasted on the false ideas of others, enlightenment often requires that the worldview that we were indoctrinated with be completely destroyed before we can finally resurrect a tangible identity and belief system.  To have rebirth, something must first die...

In 2004, I found myself at such a crossroads.  At that time I was a dedicated Democrat, and I thought I had it all figured out.  The Republican Party was to me a perfect sort of monster.  They had everything!  Corporate puppet masters.  Warmongering zealots.  Fake Christians.  Orwellian social policies.  The Bush years were a special kind of horror.  It was cinematic.  Shakespearean.  If I was to tell a story of absolute villainy, I would merely describe the mass insanity and bloodlust days of doom and dread wrought by the Neo-Con ilk in the early years of the new millennium.

But, of course, I was partly naïve...

The campaign rhetoric of John Kerry was eye opening.  I waited, day after day, month after month for my party’s candidate to take a hard stance on the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I waited for a battle cry against the Patriot Act and the unconstitutional intrusions of the Executive Branch into the lives of innocent citizens.  I waited for a clear vision, a spark of wisdom and common sense.  I waited for the whole of the election for that man to finally embrace the feelings of his supporters and say, with absolute resolve, that the broken nation we now lived in would be returned to its original foundations.  That civil liberty, freedom, and peace, would be our standard once again.  Unfortunately, the words never came, and I realized, he had no opposition to the Bush plan.  He was not going to fight against the wars, the revolving door, or the trampling of our freedoms.  Indeed, it seemed as though he had no intention of winning at all.

I came to see a dark side to the Democratic Party that had always been there but which I had refused to acknowledge.  Their leadership was no different than the Neo-Cons that I despised.  On top of this, many supporters of the Democratic establishment had no values, and no principles.  Their only desire was to “win” at any cost.  They would get their "perfect society" at any cost, even if they had to chain us all together to do it. 

There was no doubt in my mind that if the Democrats reoccupied the White House or any other political power structure one day, they would immediately adopt the same exact policies and attitudes of the Neo-Conservatives, and become just as power-mad if not more so.  In 2008 my theory was proven unequivocally correct.

It really is amazing.  I have seen the so-called “anti-war” party become the most accommodating cheerleader of laser guided death and domination in the Middle East, with predator drones operating in the sovereign skies of multiple countries raining missiles upon far more civilians than “enemy combatants”, all at the behest of Barack Obama.  I have seen the “party of civil liberties” expand on every Constitution crushing policy of the Bush Administration, while levying some of the most draconian legislation ever witnessed in the history of this country.  I have seen Obama endorse enemy combatant status for American citizens, and the end of due process under the law through the NDAA.  I have seen him endorse the end of trial by jury.  I have seen him endorse secret assassination lists, and the federally drafted murder of U.S. civilians.  I have seen him endorse executive orders which open the path to the declaration of a “national emergency” at any time for any reason allowing for the dissolution of most constitutional rights and the unleashing of martial law.

If I was still a Democrat today I would be sickly ashamed.  Yet, many average Democrats actually defend this behavior from their party.  The same behavior they once railed against under Bush.

However, I have not come here to admonish Democrats (at least not most of them).  I used to be just like them.  I used to believe in the game.  I believed that the rules mattered, and that it was possible to change things by those rules with patience and effort.  I believed in non-violent resistance, protest, civil dissent, educational activism, etc.  I thought that the courts were an avenue for political justice.  I believed that the only element required to end corruption would be a sound argument and solid logic backed by an emotional appeal to reason.  I believed in the power of elections, and had faith in the idea that all we needed was the “right candidate” to lead us to the promise land.  Again, I believed in the game. 

The problem is, the way the world works and the way we WISH the world worked are not always congruent.  Attempting to renovate a criminal system while acting within the rigged confines of that system is futile, not to mention delusional.  Corrupt oligarchies adhere to the standards of civility only as long as they feel the need to maintain the illusion of the moral high ground.  Once they have enough control, the mask always comes off, the rotten core is revealed, and immediate violence against dissent commences. 

Sometimes the only solutions left in the face of tyranny are not peaceful.  Logic, reason, and justice are not revered in a legal system which serves the will of the power elite instead of the common man.  The most beautiful of arguments are but meaningless flitters of hot air in the ears of sociopaths.  Sometimes, the bully just needs to be punched in the teeth.

This philosophy of independent action is consistently demonized, regardless of how practical it really is when faced with the facts.  The usual responses to the concept of full defiance are accusations of extremism and malicious intent.  Believe me, when I embarked on the path towards the truth in 2004, I never thought I would one day be called a potential “homegrown terrorist”, but that is essentially where we are in America in 2013.  To step outside the mainstream and question the validity of the game is akin to terrorism in the eyes of the state and the sad cowardly people who feed the machine. 

During the rise of any despotic governmental structure, there is always a section of the population that is given special treatment, and made to feel as though they are “on the winning team”.  For now, it would appear that the “Left” side of the political spectrum has been chosen by the establishment as the favored sons and daughters of the restructured centralized U.S.  However, before those of you on the Left get too comfortable in your new position as the hand of globalization, I would like to appeal to you for a moment of unbiased consideration.  I know from personal experience that there are Democrats out there who are actually far more like we constitutionalists and “right wing extremists” than they may realize.  I ask that you take the following points into account, regardless of what the system decides to label us...

We Are Being Divided By False Party Paradigms

Many Democrats and Republicans are not stupid, and want above all else to see the tenets of freedom respected and protected.  Unfortunately, they also tend to believe that only their particular political party is the true defender of liberty.  The bottom line is, at the top of each party there is very little if any discernible difference between the two.   If you ignore all the rhetoric and only look at action, the Republican and Democratic leadership are essentially the same animal working for the same special interests.  There is no left and right; only those who wish to be free, and those who wish to control.

Last year, the “Left and the “Right” experienced an incredible moment of unity after the introduction of the NDAA.  People on both sides were able to see the terrifying implications of a law that allows the government to treat any American civilian as an enemy of war without right to trial.  In 2013, the establishment is attempting to divide us once again with the issue of gun disarmament.  I have already presented my position on gun rights in numerous other articles and I believe my stance is unshakeable.  But, what I will ask anti-gun proponents and on-the-fence Democrats is this:  How do you think legislation like the NDAA will be enforced in the future?  Is it not far easier to threaten Americans with rendition, torture, and assassination when they are completely unarmed?  If you oppose the NDAA, you should also oppose any measure which gives teeth to the NDAA, including the debasement of the 2nd Amendment.

Democrats Are Looking For Help In The Wrong Place

Strangely, Democrats very often search for redress within the very system they know is criminal.  For some reason, they think that if they bash their heads into the wall long enough, a door will suddenly appear.  I’m here to tell you, there is no door. 

The biggest difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives consistently look to government to solve all the troubles of the world, when government is usually the CAUSE of all the troubles in the world.  The most common Democratic argument is that in America the government “is what we make it”, and we can change it anytime we like through the election process.  Maybe this was true at one time, but not anymore.  Just look at Barack Obama!  I would ask all those on the Left to take an honest look at the policies of Obama compared to the policies of most Neo-Cons, especially when it comes to constitutional liberties.  Where is the end to Middle Eastern war?  Where is the end to domestic spy programs?  Where is the end to incessant and dictatorial executive orders?  Where is the conflict between the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Liberals?  And, before you point at the gun control debate, I suggest you look at Obama’s gun policies compared to Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s – there is almost no difference whatsoever…

If the two party system becomes a one party system, then elections are meaningless, and electing a new set of corrupt politicians will not help us.

Democrats Value Social Units When They Should Value Individuals Instead

Democrats tend to see everything in terms of groups.  Victim status groups, religious groups, racial groups, special interest groups, etc.  They want to focus on the health of the whole world as if it is a single entity.  It is not.  Without individuals, there is no such thing as “groups”, and what we might categorize as groups change and disperse without notice.  Groups do not exist beyond shared values, and even then, the individual is still more important in the grand scheme of things. 

As a former Democrat, I know that the obsession with group status makes it easy to fall into the trap of collectivism.  It is easy to think that what is best for you must be best for everybody.  This Utopian idealism is incredibly fallible.  Wanting the best for everyone is a noble sentiment, but using government as a weapon to force your particular vision of the “greater good” on others leads to nothing but disaster.  The only safe and reasonable course is to allow individuals to choose for themselves how they will function in society IF they choose to participate at all.  Government must be left out of the equation as much as possible.  Its primary job should be to safeguard the individual’s right to choose how he will live.  You have to get over the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect social order, and even if there was, no government is capable of making it happen for you.   

Democrats Can Become As Power-Mad As Any Neo-Con

I think it is important to point out how quickly most Democratic values went out the door as soon as Barack Obama was placed in the White House.  Let’s be clear; you cannot claim to be anti-war, anti-torture, anti-assassination, anti-surveillance, anti-corporate, anti-bank, anti-rendition, etc. while defending the policies of Obama at the same time.  This is hypocrisy. 

I have heard some insane arguments from left leaning proponents lately.  Some admit that Obama does indeed murder and torture, but “at least he is pushing for universal health care…”.  Even if it did work (which it won’t), is Obamacare really worth having a president who is willing to murder children on the other side of the world and black-bag citizens here at home?  Do not forget your moral compass just because you think the system is now your personal playground.  If you do, you are no better than all the angry bloodcrazed Republicans that bumbled into the Iraq War while blindly following George W. Bush. 

There Is A Difference Between Traditional Conservatives And Neo-Cons

Neo-Cons are not conservative.  They are in fact socialist in their methods, and they always expand government spending and power while reducing constitutional protections.  The “Liberty Movement”, of which I am proudly a part, is traditional conservative.  We believe that government, especially as corrupt as it is today, cannot be trusted to administrate and nursemaid over every individual in our nation.  It has proven time after time that it caters only to criminally inclined circles of elites.  Therefore, we seek to reduce the size and influence of government so that we can minimize the damage that it is doing.  For this, we are called “extremists”. 

Governments are not omnipotent.  They are not above criticism, or even punishment.  They are merely a collection of individuals who act either with honor or dishonor.  In the Liberty Movement, we treat a corrupt government just as we would treat a corrupt individual.  We do not worship the image of the state, nor should any Democrat.

Liberty Minded Conservatives Are Not “Terrorists”

There will come a time, very soon I believe, when people like me are officially labeled “terrorists”.  Perhaps because we refuse gun registration or confiscation.  Perhaps because we develop alternative trade markets outside the system.  Maybe because some of us are targeted by federal raids, and we fight back instead of submitting.  Maybe because we speak out against the establishment during a time of “declared crisis”, and speech critical of the government is labeled “harmful to the public good”.  One way or another, whether you want to believe me now or not, the day is coming. 

Before this occurs, and the mainstream media attacks us viciously as “conspiracy theorists” and traitors, I want the Left to understand that no matter what you may hear about us, our only purpose is to ensure that our natural rights are not violated, our country is not decimated, and our republic is governed with full transparency.  We are not the dumb redneck racist hillbilly gun nuts you see in every primetime TV show, and anyone who acts out of personal bias and disdain for their fellow man is not someone we seek to associate with.  We fight because we have no other choice.  Our conscience demands that we oppose centralized tyranny.  We do what we do because the only other option is subservience and slavery.   

Many of the people I have dealt with in the Liberty Movement are the most intelligent, well-informed, principled and dedicated men and women I have ever met.  They want, basically, what most of us want:

  • to be free to determine their own destinies.
  • To be free to speak their minds without threat of state retribution.
  • To be free to defend themselves from any enemy that would seek to oppress them.
  • To live within an economic environment that is not rigged in favor of elitist minorities and on the verge of engineered collapse.
  • To live in a system that respects justice and legitimate law instead of using the law as a sword against the public.
  • To wake up each day with solace in the knowledge that while life in many regards will always be a difficult thing, we still have the means to make it better for ourselves and for the next generation.
  • To wake up knowing that those inner elements of the human heart which make us most unique and most endearing are no longer considered “aberrant”, and are no longer under threat.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (15 votes)

Hawaii: 120 Years of US Occupation: Militarism and “America’s Pacific Century”

hawaii

Many tourists from the US and around the world visit Hawaii for its beautiful islands and its beaches covered with white sand. It is known for its food and traditional luau celebrations, its native people and its culture. When you vacation in Hawaii it offers surfing, snorkeling, scuba diving, fishing, hiking and many other activities. It has been the 50th State of the United States since August 21st, 1959. Since statehood, tourism has been the main industry followed by Education, Government and the Military. However, Hawaii was a country whose government of Queen Lili’uokalani was overthrown more than 120 years ago on January 17th, 1893, when Hawaii was actually known as the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is a part of history that needs to be told.

Hawaii has experienced a transformation of its culture and politics into a Western-style democracy that has seen a steady decline in the indigenous Hawaiian population. In a US Census Bureau of 2011 reported that native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders accounted for only 10.1% of the total population.

Hawaii has also experienced a militarization of its country since President William McKinley; a veteran of the American Civil War expanded the US military on Hawaii with several bases. Military expansion continued under President Theodore Roosevelt. After the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 the US military expanded its power and declared Martial Law until October 24th, 1944. Since then Hawaii has been turned into a major strategic location for the US military. Since January 1st, 1947, the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) was established after World War II with its headquarters based in Aiea, a small Hawaiian town on the island of Oahu, near the community of Halawa Heights. The story of Hawaii is tragic and the world needs to know exactly what happened to the sovereignty of this nation. It is not just an island where you can have an adventurous vacations, because the truth is that Hawaii was systematically stolen from its native population by an imperial power, one that it was setting its horizons towards the rest of the world, but this time through the Pacific Ocean.

Before the American Occupation

The Kingdom of Hawaii had been an independent Chiefdom since 1810 with smaller independent chiefdoms of O’ahu, Maui, Moloka’i, Lana’i, Kaua’i and Ni’ihau that were unified by the chiefdom of Hawaii under King Kamehameha I or “Kamehameha the Great”. Hawaii had its own culture and political systems for at least 2,000 years before the unification of Hawaii in 1810. There were two families who ruled the Kingdom of Hawaii, the House of Kamahameha who ruled from 1810-1872 and the Kalakaua Dynasty from 1873-1893.

King Kamehameha I

King Kamehameha I

Kamehameha I ruled from 1810 until 1819, the year he died. His son King Kamehameha II was his successor and ruled Hawaii from May 8, 1819 until July 1824 the day he died of measles in London.Then King Kamehameha III, the second son of Kamehameha I, was the successor to the throne. The Hawaiian Kingdom was governed independently until 1838. It was based upon a system of common law, which included the ancient kapu (taboo) and the traditions of the Chiefs. King Kamehameha III initiated and influenced the Declaration of Rights and signed it on June 7, 1839. It was the first step into a modern democracy, one that did not follow the ancient ways of life that the people of Hawaii were accustomed to. It offered protections to all classes of people, Government, Chiefs and Native tenants.

King Kamehameha II

King Kamehameha II (right)

The Declaration of Rights opening statement read as follows:“God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth,” in unity and blessedness. God has also bestowed certain rights alike on all men and all chiefs, and all people of all lands. These are some of the rights which He has given alike to every man and every chief of correct deportment; life, limb, liberty, freedom from oppression; the earnings of his hands and the productions of his mind, not however to those who act in violation of the laws”. On October 8, 1840, King Kamehameha III voluntarily relinquished his powers and created a constitution that recognized three divisions of a civilized monarchy that included the King as the Chief Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. The King represented the Government class, the House of Nobles represented the Chiefly class and the House of Representatives represented the Tenant class (Native Hawaiians). The Hawaiian Government’s function was to protect the rights that were already established by the 1839 Declaration of Rights. King Kamehameha III introduced Hawaii’s first constitution as a constitutional monarchal system modeled after the Declaration of Independence of the United States. The Constitution defined the duties of each branch of government through laws stated that protected the rights and maintained the duties with respect for better relations between all three classes of people.

King Kamehameha III

King Kamehameha III

The new constitution encouraged the development of the country with industry and commerce. The Constitution granted land tenure which protected the rights of landowners as to promote the cultivation of soil modeled after feudalism in Medieval Europe where tenants were allowed to occupy lands in exchange for their service or labor. However, such arrangements under the revised constitution did not require a vassal-style service by both the Chiefly and Tenant classes to the King as in medieval times.By 1843, King Kamehameha III sent delegations to the United States and Europe to settle differences and negotiate treaties for recognition of Hawaii’s Independence. That same year, the success of the delegations meetings with the US and Europe acknowledged Hawaii’s call for their recognition as an independent nation. Many nations recognized Hawaii’s claim of sovereignty by 1843 and signed on to numerous Treaties and Conventions over the years including Denmark (1846), Great Britain (1851), Sweden and Norway (1852), France (1857), Belgium (1862), Netherlands (1862), Italy and Spain (1863), Russia (1869), Japan (1871), Austria-Hungary (1875), Hamburg and Bremen (now Germany in 1879), Portugal (1882) and many others. Ironically, the United States which recognized Hawaii’s claim to sovereignty and signed numerous treaties and conventions in 1849, 1870, 1875, 1883 and 1884.On December 15, 1854 King Kamehameha III had died, his successor, King Kamehameha IV born Alexander ʻIolani Liholiho Keawenui was assumed office of the Constitutional Monarch. He died of chronic asthma on November 30, 1863. Lot Kapuaiwa, a former Premier became King Kamehameha V under constitutional law of 1852. He was the architect behind the 1864 Constitution or the ‘Kamehameha Constitution’ that did not relinquish more power to the Monarch, because the power of the Monarch it once had, was now limited.

King Kamehameha IV

King Kamehameha IV (right)

It was also law that the Monarch had to take an oath of office to serve the people. The new constitution also removed the office of the Kuhina Nui (Premier) because it interfered with the duties of the Minister of Interior. On December 11, 1872, King Kamehameha V died. He did not name a successor to the throne. On January 8, 1873, William Charles Lunalilo of the Kalakaua Dynasty was elected successor to King Kamehameha V. One year later on February 3rd, 1874, King Lunalilo died without naming a successor. The Hawaiian Legislature then elected David Kalakaua on February 12th, 1874 in a special session. His first act was to nominate and confirm his younger brother, William P. Leleiohoku, as successor, but on April 10, 1877, William P. Leleiohoku had died. King David Kalakaua publicly announced Lydia Kamaka’eha Dominis to be his successor who was later called Queen Lili’uokalani. By 1887, turmoil erupted when the Bayonet Constitution was imposed on Hawaii by a small group of American, European and Hawaiian nationals called the “Honolulu Rifles” which had more than 1,500 armed men. They had a meeting and planned to take away the political rights from the native population. They threatened King David Kalakaua with death if he did not accept their demands. One of the demands was for a new Cabinet Council, so on July 7, 1887 the new “Bayonet Constitution” was forced upon the King by the newly imposed members of his cabinet.

King Kamehameha V

King Kamehameha V

However, the Legislative Assembly had been adjourned since October 16, 1886 making the new constitution illegal because it did not obtain the consent or the necessary ratification of the Legislative Assembly. The new constitution forced voters including foreign nationals (who were considered aliens and first time voters) to swear an oath to support the constitution before they could vote in any election. The “Honolulu Rifles” used the vote to disenfranchise the majority vote of the native Hawaiian population so that “White” foreign nationals can gain control of the Legislature and it also provided a loophole that benefited the self-imposed Cabinet Council to control the Monarchy. Hui Kalai’aina or the Hawaiian Political Party was an organization that protested against the constitution of 1887. Hui Kalai’aina consistently petitioned King David Kalakaua to bring back the legitimate 1864 constitution.

The Overthrow of Queen Lili’uokalani

Queen Lili'uokalani

Queen Lili’uokalani

The Annexation of Hawaii was a result of a planned Coup d’état by a group of Christian Missionaries who came from Boston, Massachusetts called the Committee of Safety, a 13-member group of the Hawaiian League or ironically known as the Annexation Club composed of American, Hawaiian, and European citizens who were also members of the Missionary Party. The Coup also involved American and European residents who supported the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom.On January 16, Charles B. Wilson a Marshal of the Kingdom was told that a planned coup was taking place by Hawaiian detectives. Wilson requested warrants to arrest members of the Committee of Safety and called for martial law. But the members were politically connected to United States Government Minister John L. Stevens so the requests were denied by Attorney General Arthur P. Peterson and members of the Queen’s cabinet to avoid any violence if they issued the arrest warrants.The planned Coup was led by Lorrin A. Thurston, a grandson of American missionaries and future President of the Provisional Government of Hawaii, Sanford B. Dole. He was supported by American and European business interests that were living in Hawaii. Thurston was also supported by the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom who registered voters and delivered voter turnouts for political candidates in their favor. After Wilson tried to negotiate with Thurston which failed, he began a mobilization of armed men for a confrontation with the Committee of Safety with Captain Samuel Nowlein of the Royal Household Guard and accumulated a force of about 496 men to protect the Queen.

Lorrin A. Thurston

Lorrin A. Thurston

The Coup began on January 17, 1893 when a local police officer was shot and wounded trying to stop a wagon carrying weapons to the Honolulu Rifles. The Committee of Safety organized the Honolulu Rifles to position themselves at Ali’olani Hale, right across the street from Iolani Palace (the Queen’s residence) and waited for her response to the Coup.The overthrow of Queen Lili’uokalani took place on January 17, 1893. The Committee of Safetyremoved the queen, overthrew the entire monarchy, and led the charge for Hawaii’s annexation to the United States. What prompted the actions undertaken to overthrow the Queen? Three days prior to the Coup, which was on January 14, 1893, Queen Lili’uokalani drafted a new constitution that carried the principles and the laws of the Constitution of 1864. During the Coup, the Committee of Safety was concerned that American citizens could have possibly been in danger of retaliation from the Native population, so the United States government Minister John L. Stevens called for US Marines and sailors from the USS Boston to protect the Consulate, Arion Hall and the US Legation. The Queen was deposed and the Kingdom of Hawaii was under the control of the US military.

Sanford B. Dole

Sanford B. Dole

U. S. Marines and sailors who were ordered to land in Hawaii at the conspirators request contributed to the success of the coup. Queen Lili’uokalani was placed under house arrest at the Iolani Palace. It led to the formation of the Republic of Hawaii for a short time. In order to avoid bloodshed Queen Lili’uokalani temporarily relinquished her throne and issued the following statement to the United States Government:

I, Liliuokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom. That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest and impelled by said forces, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo (?) the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.

Done at Honolulu, this 17th day of January, A. D. 1893.

A provisional government was established and assumed power until the annexation of Hawaii took place with the United States. On February 1, 1893, the US Minister (ambassador) John L. Stevens proclaimed Hawaii a protectorate of the United States. A treaty of annexation was submitted to the United States Senate, on February 15, 1893 but the newly elected U.S. President Grover Cleveland, withdrew the treaty of annexation and appointed former Democratic congressman from Georgia, James H. Blount, as Special Commissioner to investigate the illegal intervention by U.S. diplomatic and military personnel on behest of the business elites. Although Blount did not interview any of the conspirators for the report, he concluded that the United States legation and the US Marines and Navy were responsible for the overthrow of Queen Lili’uokalani’s government as an illegal act that violated international laws.

On November 16, 1893, President Cleveland proposed to return Queen Lili’uokalani to the throne if she granted amnesty to those responsible for the Coup. She refused the offer. It was then reported that Queen Lili’uokalani would have the conspirators “beheaded”, but she denied the accusation. She did admit however that she intended the Coup plotters to suffer the punishment of banishment. In her book, Hawaii’s Story by Hawaii’s Queen by Liliuokalani, Queen of Hawaii (1838-1917) clearly stated her position on beheading her opponents and how the media misinformed the public on what she actually said:

I well knew, and it has been conclusively shown in this history, that my actions could not be binding or in any way recognized unless supported by the ministers in cabinet meeting. This was according to law, and according to the constitution these very persons had forced upon the nation. Perhaps Mr. Willis thought that all he had to do was to propose, and then that my place was to acquiesce. But he asked again for my judgment in the matter as it stood, and seemed determined to obtain an expression of opinion from me. I told him that, as to granting amnesty, it was beyond my powers as a constitutional sovereign. That it was a matter for the privy council and for the cabinet. That our laws read that those who are guilty of treason should suffer the penalty of death.

He then wished to know if I would carry out that law. I said that I would be more inclined personally to punish them by banishment, and confiscation of their property to the government. He inquired again if such was my decision. I regarded the interview as an informal conversation between two persons as to the best thing for the future of my country, but I repeated to him my wish to consult my ministers before deciding on any definite action. This terminated the consultation, excepting that Mr. Willis specially requested me not to mention anything concerning the matter to any person whomsoever, and assured me he would write home to the government he represented.

He did so. It was a long month before he could receive any reply; but when it came he communicated the fact to me, and asked for another interview at his house. This time he also inquired if there was any other person I would like to have with me. I suggested the name of Mr. J. O. Carter, at which the American minister seemed to be highly pleased. So at the stated hour we met. This time Mr. Willis had present as his stenographer Mr. Ellis C. Mills, afterward American consul-general at Honolulu. He first read me what he said were some notes of our former interview. From whence did these come? By Mr. Willis’s own proposition we were to be entirely alone during that interview, and to all appearance we were so. Was there a stenographer behind that Japanese screen? Whatever the paper was, Mr. Willis finished the reading of it, and asked me if it was correct. I replied, “Yes.”

Doubtless, had I held the document in my hand, and had I been permitted to read and examine it, for the eye perceives words that fall unheeded on the ear, I should then have noticed that there was a clause which declared that I was to have my opponents beheaded. That is a form of punishment which has never been used in the Hawaiian Islands, either before or since the coming of foreigners. Mr. Willis then asked me if my views were the same as when we met the first time; and I again said “Yes,” or words to that effect. Mr. Carter inquired if I rescinded so much of Mr. Willis’s report as related to the execution of the death penalty upon those in revolt. To this I replied, “I do in that respect.”

Yet, notwithstanding the fact was officially reported in the despatches of Mr. Willis, that I especially declared that my enemies should not suffer the death penalty, I found to my horror, when the newspapers came to Honolulu from the United States, that the President and the American people had been told that I was about to behead them all! There is an old proverb which says that “a lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting on its boots.” That offensive charge was repeated to my hurt as often as possible; although I immediately send my protest that I had not used the words attributed to me by Mr. Willis in our informal conversation, and that at my first official interview with him I had modified (so far as my influence would go) the law of all countries regarding treason.

The American government and media were demonizing the Queen by misreporting what she was saying about the death penalty. It made the Hawaiian Kingdom look like a barbaric society when it came to law and order. President Cleveland sent the issue of reinstating Queen Lili’uokalani to the United States Congress with a referral for a US Senate investigation. But later the Queen changed her position on the issue of punishment. So on December 18, 1893, US Minister Willis demanded that the Queen should be returned to the throne by the Provisional Government without knowing that President Cleveland had already sent a referral to Congress. So the Provisional government flatly refused the demands of US Minister Willis knowing that the issue was out of the President’s hands. The US Congress commissioned John Tyler Morgan, a known racist and a supporter of Hawaiian Annexation to investigate the Hawaiian revolution.

John Tyler Morgan

John Tyler Morgan

The Morgan Report was produced on February 26, 1894 found all parties involved in the coup “NOT GUILTY”. Shortly after the Morgan Report was released, President Cleveland changed his position and ignored the Queen’s demands upon the US government to intervene on Hawaii’s political situation concerning her reinstatement of her throne. President Cleveland resumed normal diplomatic relations with the Provisional Government of the Republic of Hawaii. On July 4, 1894, Sanford B. Dole became the President of the Republic of Hawaii and was recognized by the United States government as a protectorate. The Republic continued to govern Hawaii but was unpopular among the country’s residents who were against annexation, so voting rights became limited to only 4,000 people who were eligible to the Republic’s standards; most of them were politicians that were already in power.

The US government did not reinstate the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom after it was clear that the Provisional government was fully responsible for the political dilemma.Then a resistance took place between January 6th and January 9th, 1895 on the island of Oahu, Hawaii by Royalists who opposed the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, known as a Counter-revolution. The Counter-revolution was led by Robert Wilcox, Joseph Nawahi, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Charles T. Gulick, an advisor to both Kalākaua and Queen Liliʻuokalani and other members of the former Royal Guard who were disbanded in 1893.

They recruited native Hawaiians who were willing to fight, but were inexperienced and their numbers were small in comparison to the Provisional government’s forces who were well armed and funded through Hawaii’s treasury. The plan was to restore Queen Liliuokalani to the throne. The rebels had smuggled arms from California and sent to a secret Honolulu location. Three separate battles took place on Oahu, but the rebels lost the fight. After the battles, arms were found at Washington Place; Queen Lili’uokalani was convicted of treason and was under house arrest at ‘Iolani Palace. She formally abdicated on January 24, 1895, and eventually won clemency for the rebels.The US government’s non-action on Hawaii’s political status continued after the rebellion. The US government waited for five years until President Cleveland left office on March 1897.

Then a new President of the United States was elected and it was non-other than Republican William McKinley who defeated Democrat William Jennings Bryan. One of President McKinley’s campaign planks was that “The Hawaiian Islands should be controlled by the United States and no foreign power should be permitted to interfere with them.” President McKinley entered a second treaty of annexation with the same group of men of the U.S. legation that was involved in the overthrow of the Constitutional Monarchy on June 16, 1897. However, due to the protests submitted by Queen Lili‘uokalani and more than 21,169 signature petitions by Hawaiian Nationals against annexation, the treaty could not be ratified by the US Senate.

On December 1897, the U.S. Battleship Maine was sent to Havana Harbor to “protect U.S. citizens and property” during the Cuban War of Independence, the road to war with Spain was in the making.On February 15th 1898, The USS Maine exploded and sunk killing more than 260 sailors. The US Naval Court of Inquiry created the Sampson Board to investigate the incident and declared that the incident occurred by a submerged explosive mine, but no blame was put on a particular country at the time. “Yellow” journalism of William Randolph Hearst blamed the attack on Spain (In 1969, the U.S. Navy determined that the USS Maine exploded due to a defective boiler). However, the American public and congress along with the Republican Party wanted war with Spain, thanks to the propaganda by the media who published headlines such as “Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain” brought war fever to the people and won popular support.

President McKinley continued negotiations with Spain for Cuba’s Independence with a three-point plan that called for a cease-fire for at least six-months, allow civilians the freedom to return to their homes and communities and allow US Ambassador Steward Woodford to have Spain agree if peace is not achieved by October 1st President McKinley would then find a solution to the crisis, but it was unsuccesful. McKinley sent the matter to Congress. Congress declared war and McKinley sent a list of demands through US Ambassador Steward Woodford for the immediate cease-fire with the Cuban rebels and the withdrawal of Spain from Cuba since the Cuban War of Independence was ongoing. Spain agreed to U.S. demands on April 10, but before McKinley received Spain’s response he had reversed his position on war with Spain and called for “forcible intervention” to bring peace to Cuba. On April 20, 1898, Congress passed a joint resolution which McKinley signed and called for the recognition of Cuba’s Independence; the withdrawal of Spain from Cuba authorizes the President to use the military to meet its demands and denied any intention of occupying Cuba after Spain withdrew its forces which the Teller Amendment attached to the Joint resolution had implied. The resolution was received by Spain with an ultimatum that the US would use military force if Cuba’s independence was not recognized.

On April 21st Spain broke diplomatic relations with the US and on the following day the US implemented a naval blockade of all Cuban ports. On April 24th Spain declared war on the US. The next day, the US formally declares war on Spain by Act of Congress although the US had declared war by its blockade of the Cuban ports.On May 4th, 1898 Representative Frances G. Newlands of Nevada introduces Joint Resolution of Annexation known as the Newlands Resolution in House of Representatives regarding Hawaii’s political situation. Part of the resolution said:

Whereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining;

Therefore Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and that all and singular the property and rights hereinbefore mentioned are vested in the United States of America.

In a Secret Debate on the Annexation of Hawaii on May 31st, 1898, Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge saw the Annexation of Hawaii as a Military strategic location concerning the Spanish-American War:

“Mr. President, if I had been permitted to continue I could have finished in ten minutes. I have really made the argument which I desire to make. If it had not been that it would have precipitated a protracted debate, I should have argued then what has been argued ably since we came into secret legislative session, that at this moment the Administration was compelled to violate the neutrality of those islands, that protests from foreign representatives had already been received, and complications with other powers were threatened, that the annexation or some action in regard to those islands had become a military necessity”

On June 15th, The House of Representatives passed the resolution. Then on July 6th in a 42-21 vote with the absence of 26 Senators passed the resolution. Present McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution the next day on July 7th. By August 12th, 1898, Hawaii is a US territory.

A ceremony took place that removed the Hawaiian flag and replaced it with an American flag. It also established Hawaii as a US military base to fight Spain in the Pacific Ocean notably, Guam and the Philippines. It was a plan by the US government to annex Hawaii as a military strategic location recommended by Alfred T. Mahan. Mahan was considered an important strategist on the issue of “Sea Power”. His strategies influenced Navies from Great Britain, Germany, Japan and the United States. He wrote a letter to the New York Times which was published back on January 31st, 1893 caught the attention from the editor of ‘The Forum’ and asked him to state his case to the military on the importance of Hawaii called Hawaii and Our Future Sea-power.” It was published in the March-August 1893 issue. In the letter Mahan wrote:

To the Editor of the “New York Times”:–

There is one aspect of the recent revolution in Hawaii which seems to have been kept out of sight, and that is the relation of the islands, not merely to our own and to European countries, but to China. How vitally important that may become in the future is evident from the great number of Chinese, relatively to the whole population, now settled in the islands.

It is a question for the whole civilized world and not for the United States only, whether the Sandwich Islands, with their geographical and military importance, unrivalled by that of any other position in the North Pacific, shall in the future be an outpost of European civilization, or of the comparative barbarism of China. It is sufficiently known, but not, perhaps, generally noted in our country, that many military men abroad, familiar with Eastern conditions and character, look with apprehension toward the day when the vast mass of China—now inert—may yield to one of those impulses which have in past ages buried civilization under a wave of barbaric invasion. The great armies of Europe, whose existence is so frequently deplored, may be providentially intended as a barrier to that great movement, if it come. Certainly, while China remains as she is, nothing more disastrous for the future of the world can be imagined than that general disarmament of Europe which is the Utopian dream of some philanthropists.

China, however, may burst her barriers eastward as well as westward, toward the Pacific as well as toward the European Continent. In such a movement it would be impossible to exaggerate the momentous issues dependent upon a firm hold of the Sandwich Islands by a great, civilized, maritime power. By its nearness to the scene, and by the determined animosity to the Chinese movement which close contact seems to inspire, our own country, with its Pacific coast, is naturally indicated as the proper guardian for this most important position. To hold it, however, whether in the supposed case or in war with a European state, implies a great extension of our naval power. Are we ready to undertake this?

A.T. MAHAN, Captain, United States Navy

 Hawaii was annexed because it was a strategic location for imperial reasons. One of them was to have a military presence on the Pacific ocean in close proximity to East Asia which includes China, Japan, North and South Korea, Mongolia and Taiwan. The other reason was to have access to Asian markets for American Corporate interests.

The Territory of Hawaii and the “Big Five” Corporate Monopoly

Under President McKinley, Americans fought against Spain in 1898 in the Caribbean (Cuba and Puerto Rico), and in the Pacific (The Philippines, and Guam). Hawaii’s strategic location for warfare in the Philippines was vital to American interests. President McKinley also signed the Hawaiian Organic Act of 1900. It established the Office of the Territorial Governor, a control mechanism that allowed the Governor of Hawaii to be dictated by the President of the United States. The Territorial Governor can be removed at any time without the consensus of the Hawaiian people. Since then Hawaii’s tourism industry expanded. The US Military also expanded under American Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt with several bases on the island of Oahu. By 1906, the island of Oahu was fortified as a “Ring of Steel,” with gun batteries pointed outwards towards the Pacific Ocean mounted on steel coastal walls. Today there is even a Hawaii Army Museum.

From July 7, 1898 until August 21st, 1959 the “Big Five” were multi-million dollar corporations that operated during the Kingdom era until Hawaii became the 50th state. The “Big Five” benefited from the annexation and became dominate power in the Hawaiian economy. The “Big Five” were Castle & Cooke, Alexander & Baldwin, C. Brewer & Co., American Factors (who was later renamed to Amfac) and Theo H. Davies & Co. Sugarcane plantations gained investments by eliminating tariffs imposed on the sugarcane that was sent to the United States which benefitted them with extra money to spend on new equipment, acquire more land and hire more cheap labor. The companies did not compete with each other because they joined forces by working together to keep the prices on their goods and services relatively high. This allowed them to gain enormous profits. The executives of the “Big Five” collaberated on all issues even as board of directors for all of their companies. They gained political power since their corporations dominated all of Hawaii. They controlled the labor force and even steered the labor force to vote in their favor. Hawaii was effectively ruled by the “Big Five” as an oligarchy. They backed only white candidates who were Republicans to run the government. Democrats were not popular among the Oligarchs.

A signature produce from Hawaii that is known and sold in many countries around the world today was Pineapples. The Pineapples industry was started by Sanford B. Dole’ s cousin, James Drummond Dole known as the Hawaiian Pineapple Company, today it called the Dole Food Company. James Dole arrived around 1899 and started the first Pineapple Plantation. Around that same time on August 8, 1899, Hurricane San Ciriaco struck Puerto Rico followed by another hurricane which severely damaged the agricultural industry that left more than 3,000 dead and left thousands of people without food or shelter. The Hurricanes also destroyed more than 80% of Puerto Rico’s coffee crop. It contributed to the shortage of sugar produced in the Caribbean. A demand for the sugar from Hawaii and other sugar producing countries needed more workers in the labor force. Puerto Rican laborers were recruited to meet the world market demands of sugar. Other immigrants including Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese, Portuguese and the Chinese were recruited to work on plantations in Hawaii as well since the early 1850’s.

The Attack on Pearl Harbor and FDR’s Role

Pearl Harbor Attack on December 7, 1941

Pearl Harbor Attack on December 7, 1941

It is now known that by 1941, the US government decrypted Japanese military and Diplomatic codes before the attack on Pearl Harbor took place according to World War II veteran and Author Robert Stinnett who wrote ‘Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor’ . Stinnett’s obtained documents related to intelligence gathering of intercepted codes that proved President Franklyn Delano Roosevelt and at least 35 other people in the top levels of the US government and the military knew that an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor was going to take place through the Freedom of Information Act.

A photograph of letter written to President Roosevelt’s high-level military advisors Captains Walter S. Anderson and Dudley W. Knox by Lt. Commander Arthur H. McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) was discovered on January 24, 1995. In the letter, an 8-point plan to lure Japan into attacking US ships. The 8-point plan read as follows:

9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States Government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese Government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines’, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire. 10.

If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war so much the better. In any case we should be prepared to accept the threat of war.

President Roosevelt seized on the opportunity. Author Robert Stinnett links the connection between the attack on Pearl Harbor and FDR’s ambitious plan to bring the US into war with Japan in six actions of the McCollum’s 8-point:

“President Roosevelt can be directly linked to ..six of McCollum’s proposed actions: namely Actions B and G, curtailing Japanese access to natural resources of Southeast Asia – for he met with Dutch officials and received Japanese intercepts concerning Japan- Dutch negotiations in 1940-41; Action C, aid to China: FDR directed the Administration’s China strategy which antagonized Japan’s leaders who were engaged in war with China. On September 25, 1940, the administration approved a $25 million loan to China’s U.S.-recognized government headed by Generalissimo Chiang-Kai-Shek. …

The conclusive evidence that links FDR or high-level administration officials to the eight action proposals is as follows: Action A: Arrange for U.S. use of British Pacific Bases. Arrangements were made for U.S. use of Rabaul’s Simpson Harbor, a British possession in New Britain in South Pacific, as USN Advance Pacific Base F. Orders came from Admiral Harold Stark, FDR’s Chief of Naval Operations

One of the most stunning comments that FDR was quoted as saying was “I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing, I don’t mind losing one or two cruisers, but do not take a chance of losing five or six.” Stinnett further wrote that “from March through July 1941, White House records show that FDR ignored international law and dispatched naval task groups into Japanese waters on three such pop-up cruises.” Stinnett makes the case that prove that one of FDR’s actions were deliberate by sending US Navy cruisers to Japanese waters to create a response from the Japanese by way of a military attack:

Documentation that directly links FDR with McCollum’s Action D – sending US Navy cruisers in provocative moves against Japan includes the following first discussion in the White House Feb 10, 1941. Present were President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of Navy Frank Knox, General George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff and Admiral Harold R. Stark, Chief of Navy Operations. Stark warned FDR that the cruises “will precipitate hostilities”

The plan was to lure the US into a war with Japan. What were the benefits of such actions by the US government? So that the US can justify to the American people that Japan is a threat to the US population. It was also a boost to the Military-Industrial Complex by creating a war economy that provides jobs to produce weapons that benefit American corporations. It allowed the US to expand its Imperial agenda in the Pacific Region and it allowed the US to expand its bases on the Territory of Hawaii. Japan finally attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 following provocative acts by the US which left 2,403 US military personal dead and 1,178 injured. Japan suffered 64 deaths from their attack. On that day President Roosevelt delivered “The Day of Infamy Speech” and congress declared war on Japan shortly after. America entered World War II.

Martial Law in Hawaii 1941-1944

Martial Law Declared

Martial Law Declared

After the Attack on Pearl Harbor, a dark moment in Hawaii’s history occurred. Martial Law was declared on December 7th, 1941 until October 24th, 1944. The US declared Hawaii a war zone that can be a potential target for invasion and infiltration by its enemies. The territorial governor of Hawaii Joseph Boyd Poindexter suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus meaning that the military can detain you without no judge or jury and signed a declaration of martial law prepared by the US army. Army commander General Short stationed on Oahu declared he was the military governor in charge until he was relieved of command on December 17th 1941. Martial Law continued until October 24, 1944. It was legally justified under the Hawaiian Organic Act of 1900 that made Hawaii a US territory in which section 67 of the Organic act stated: That the governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws of the United States and of the Territory of Hawaii within the said Territory, and whenever it becomes necessary he may call upon the commanders of the military and naval forces of the United States in the Territory of Hawaii, or summon the posse comitatus,or call out the militia of the Territory to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion in said Territory, and he may, in case of rebellion or invasion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Territory, or any part thereof, under martial law until communication can be had with the President and his decision there on made known. According to Joseph Garner Anthony, a prominent Lawyer who was based in Honolulu, Hawaii and served as Attorney General in the Territory of Hawaii from October 1942 until December 1943 stated that Martial law in Hawaii was unconstitutional. On May 31st, 1942 Anthony published an article in the California Law Review called ‘Martial Law in Hawaii’ described what the orders of the military governor were:

The general orders of the Military Governor cover a wide range of subjects, the jurisdiction and powers of all civil courts, the creation of military tribunals for the trial of civilians, regulation of traffic, firearms, gasoline, liquor, food stuffs and feed, the possession of radios, the censorship of the press, communications by wireless, cable and wireless telephone, the freezing of wages for all persons employed on the Island of Oahu, and the regulation of the possession of currency.

Martial law was intentionally directed at the Japanese population, but it targeted all Hawaiian residents. Anthony describes that the military controlled all aspects of civilian life. It controlled all government functions and the judicial system which was replaced with a military tribunal. Constitutional rights were suspended. All civilians were forced to submit to curfews and blackouts, fingerprinting, food and gas rationing. Martial Law censored the news personal communications. Personal mail was screened and read by the army. Foreign languages were banned for telephone calls, newspapers, and radio. All Hawaiian residents were required to carry Identity cards by law. The Japanese population were highly restricted and oppressed by the military in every aspect of their lives. J. Garner Anthony was proven correct because after the war, the United States Supreme Court found that martial law in Hawaii had been unconstitutional in a Supreme Court decision based on the Duncan v. Kahanamoku case. Kahanamoku was a military police officer who arrested Lloyd C. Duncan, a civilian employed as a ship fitter for public intoxication during the war.

Hawaii under Martial Law

Hawaii under Martial Law

Hawaii was not a state, but still was administered under the Hawaiian Organic Act of 1900 which instituted martial law. Duncan was therefore tried by a military tribunal but appealed to the Supreme Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus or for a person who was arrested to be brought before a judge or a court jury to decide the fate of the defendant. The Supreme Court ruled in Duncan’s favor on February 25, 1946 stating that Duncan v. Kahanamoku case did not give the military any authority to try civilians in military tribunals because it was unconstitutional therefore Martial Law in the state of Hawaii was not different than other US states of the union. Justice Hugo Black declared in an opinion that law and policy is as follows:

It follows that civilians in Hawaii are entitled to the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial to the same extent as those who live in any part of our country. We are aware that conditions peculiar to Hawaii might imperatively demand extraordinarily speedy and effective measures in the event of actual or threatened invasion. . . . Extraordinary measures in Hawaii, however necessary, are not supportable on the mistaken premise that Hawaiian inhabitants are less entitled to constitutional protection than others. For here Congress did not in the Organic Act exercise whatever power it might have had to limit the application of the Constitution [citation omitted]. The people of Hawaii are therefore entitled to constitutional protection to the same extent as the inhabitants of the 48 states.

The case was finally declared that the military tribunals were unconstitutional.

“Our system of government clearly is the antithesis of total military rule and the founders of this country are not likely to have contemplated complete military dominance within the limits of a Territory made part of this country and not recently taken from an enemy. They were opposed to governments that placed in the hands of one man the power to make, interpret and enforce the laws. Their philosophy has been the people’s throughout our history. For that reason we have maintained legislatures chosen by citizens or their representatives and courts and juries to try those who violate legislative enactments. We have always been especially concerned about the potential evils of summary criminal trials and have guarded against them by provisions embodied in the constitution itself.

Legislatures and courts are not merely cherished. American institutions, they are indispensable to our government. Military tribunals have no such standing. For as this Court has said before, ‘…the military should always be kept in subjection to the laws of the country to which it belongs, and that he is no friend to the Republic who advocates the contrary. The established principle of every free people is, that the law shall alone govern, and to it the military must always yield.”

J. Garner Anthony published an article in the Yale Law Journal titled “Hawaiian Martial Law in the Supreme Court,” on November 1947. He wrote:

It will probably be years before the historian of the future can clearly appraise the motives and causes that led the Army to pursue the course it did in Hawaii. It is inconceivable that those in high places in the War Department were not cognizant of the fact that the regime erected in Hawaii superceding the civil Government was not only illegal but contrary to our most cherished traditions of the supremacy of the law. It is readily understandable that military personnel not familiar with the mixed peoples of Hawaii should have certain misgivings concerning them. However, the conduct of the populace on December 7 and thereafter should have put these military doubts at rest. To be sure it took some time for the military authorities to assure themselves that the civil population was all that it seemed–a loyal American community. What is not understandable is why the military government was continued after several years had elapsed and the fears of the most suspicious had been allayed.

It was dark moment in Hawaii’s history that signifies what a military dictatorship is capable of. The Hawaiian population experienced Martial law and its oppressive tactics first hand.

Hawaii Statehood 1959

In 1959, Hawaii had a Plebiscite vote that allowed residents to vote on whether to become a State or remain as a territory of the United States. Independence was not on the ballot. Non-native Hawaiians (Whites) outnumbered the Native-Hawaiians who were in favor of Statehood, won the majority vote. Native Hawaiians (the Kanaka Maoli) were disenfranchised again so they were denied the right to decide the which path their country would take. With the United States and Hawaii’s state legislature in control of the vote, it was no surprise what outcome would be produced. According to International Human Rights attorney and advocate in the 1993 People’s International Tribunal in Hawaii Jose Luis Morin wrote an essay in 1997 for NACLA Report on the Americas titled “Hawaii: Stirrings in the Colony” wrote:

As it had done with Puerto Rico in 1953, the United States used the 1959 plebiscite to declare to the United Nations that the people of Hawaii had attained full self-government through the exercise of self-determination. Based on this misrepresentation, and without further investigation or monitoring of the election, Hawaii-together with Alaska- was removed from the UN list of Non-Self-Governing territories. Thereafter, the Kanaka Maoli have been hindered in their ability to use international law in the struggle for their rights.

The vote took Hawaii off the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories of the United Nations that included Alaska, Guam, the Panama Canal Zone and others who were controlled by colonial powers had under international law the right to decide self-determination through a fair and peaceful de-colonization process. Hawaii was denied that right through fraud. It happened again in the 1996 Native Hawaiian vote. The state of Hawaii –sponsored a vote with a question. “Shall the Hawaiian People elect delegates to propose a Native Hawaiian government? According to Morin “All told, 60% did not participate, while 10% voted against the measure. These figures are due in large part to the success of a boycott against the plebiscite organized by Stop the State-Sponsored Plebiscite-a coalition of Kanaka Maoli organizations that refused to legitimate the vote with their participation” It was a protest against the fraudulent nature of the vote. Morin continued:

As with the 1959 statehood plebiscite in Hawaii, the outcome of the Native Hawaiian vote was orchestrated through various Legislative maneuvers and fraudulent electoral practices. The entire enterprise was created and financed by the state legislature-a body not representative of the Kanaka Maoli people. The state legislature dictated the time, manner, process and ballot question. It also granted itself the power to accept or reject the results of the vote as well as the outcome of the “Hawaiian Constitutional Convention” that would allegedly follow the vote, by making explicit that no legal changes were possible without state approval.

Hawaii’s fight for independence will continue despite the fact that the voting system is fraudulent. The world one day will recognize the injustice committed against the Hawaiian people. They will demand an end to the colonial dilemma by demanding free and fair elections for the Hawaiian population. The Hawaiian people deserve better. They have been victims of US imperialism for more than 120 years.

Hillary Clinton’s “America’s Pacific Century”

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote an article entitled “America’s Pacific Century” based on the need to expand America’s power into the Pacific region on the November 2011 issue of Foreign Policy Magazine. Clinton clearly defined the US role in the region:

Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia. Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region’s key players.

Clinton talk’s about a regional strategy that would dictate to key Asian states in the Pacific how they will work with Washington concerning American interests.

A strategic turn to the region fits logically into our overall global effort to secure and sustain America’s global leadership. The success of this turn requires maintaining and advancing a bipartisan consensus on the importance of the Asia-Pacific to our national interests; we seek to build upon a strong tradition of engagement by presidents and secretaries of state of both parties across many decades. It also requires smart execution of a coherent regional strategy that accounts for the global implications of our choices.

WHAT DOES THAT regional strategy look like? For starters, it calls for a sustained commitment to what I have called “forward-deployed” diplomacy. That means continuing to dispatch the full range of our diplomatic assets — including our highest-ranking officials, our development experts, our interagency teams, and our permanent assets — to every country and corner of the Asia-Pacific region. Our strategy will have to keep accounting for and adapting to the rapid and dramatic shifts playing out across Asia. With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

The Regional Strategy Clinton is describing is to support regimes in Asia that comply with Washington’s demands with her Bilateral Security alliances, for example the Prime Minister of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck who the Obama administration supports. According to the Agence France-Presse (AFP) on November 15th, 2011 regarding Clinton’s trip to offer assistance to a flood ravaged Thailand with a commitment to support Shinawatra politically with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and militarily “One of the messages that the secretary will bring directly to the Thai people and the government is that we believe it is in the national security and political interest of the United States to have this government succeed” according to a Senior State Department official.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

The comment on what Clinton’s message will be coincides with what she wrote in her article:

Our treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand are the fulcrum for our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific. They have underwritten regional peace and security for more than half a century, shaping the environment for the region’s remarkable economic ascent. They leverage our regional presence and enhance our regional leadership at a time of evolving security challenges.

The United States is preparing a plan that would engage with China militarily and economically. It will take place from the Hawaii, where the United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) is located at Camp H. M. Smith, a town of Aiea on the island of Oahu. Hawaii is the main place where all operations of the US government to destabilize, launch a war, or threaten China, North Korea and any other nation who does not cooperate within Washington’s Imperial agenda for the next 100 years.

The 2011 APEC Leader’s Meeting was held at the Hawaii Convention Center in Honolulu, Hawaii from November 12–13 of 2011. In the press conference about talked about the economic impact of the Asia-Pacific will have on the US economy. President Obama said “Now, the single greatest challenge for the United States right now, and my highe

‘That's a f**kin hero!’: Ex-SWAT team deputy fends off Houston looters with shotgun (VIDEO)

Published time: 31 Aug, 2017 22:48 In the midst of a once in a lifetime flooding...

GOP splits further as 'skinny' Obamacare repeal may get rewritten in conference

Four Republican senators are threatening an 11th hour vote on the Health Care Freedom Act, or...

The Destructiveness of America’s Alliances

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org Alliances between nations are military. Without being military, they would be nothing. Trade agreements don’t require any alliances at...

Former congressional candidate gets 20yrs for plotting attack on Muslim community

Robert Doggart, a former independent Tennessee congressional candidate, has been sentenced to jail for 20 years...

Gallup Finds Stunning Decline in Americans’ Respect for U.S. Government

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org On June 9th, Gallup’s Editor-In-Chief, Frank Newport, headlined "Americans Want More Than Just Budget Cuts” and reported that, “Gallup's latest update...

The Real Story of Zbigniew Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, died Friday at a hospital in Virginia at the age of 89. Though the...
video

Video: Jeremy Scahill on Trump’s Embrace of Duterte’s Deadly War on Drugs in the...

https://democracynow.org - In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has suggested he might impose martial law across the country, after declaring it this ... Via Youtube

ISIS-Linked Militants Test Duterte in Battle

Philippine troops engaged Islamic State-linked militants in pitched clashes on Thursday around the southern city of Marawi as the military deployed tanks...

Army ‘resisted’ plan to deploy troops on streets of Britain

Published time: 24 May, 2017 13:20 The British military reportedly initially opposed the idea of...

Outrage as White House Set to 'Roll Out Red Carpet' for Murderer Duterte

Just a few weeks after he congratulated autocratic Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on a controversial referendum win, U.S. President Donald Trump invited Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte—who has presided...
video

Video: #1917LIVE: The sun sets on the Russian Empire

Romanov rule is collapsing. Martial law imposed in #Petrograd. Authorities fear violence can erupt anytime. Russia is like a boiling cauldron, that can explode...

Coming Soon to a City Near You

“Our current and past strategies can no longer hold. We are facing environments that the masters of war never foresaw. We are facing a...

Eyes Wide Open

Any American who just recently started screaming about the threat of tyranny after Trump emerged on the scene must quickly come face to face with the harsh truth that they have arrived a little late to...

From Fake News to Fake Intelligence

Never in the history of the Central Intelligence Agency has it and its surrogates so blatantly and boldly interfered in a U.S. election. The...

Anatomy of a Nationalist

Photo by Marc Nozell | CC BY 2.0 County Dublin, Ireland. One of Donald Trump’s stated priorities is to preserve American culture, yet he told New...

Tyranny at Standing Rock

Photo by Patricia Hammel Isthmus | CC BY -NC-SA 3.0 US   “We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” — Benjamin...

Paradoxical Truths of an Isolationist Empire

In the photograph, I’m wearing a gas mask and 3D glasses that I knew, if it came down to it, would not protect my...

A Nonviolent Strategy to Liberate Syria

Robert J. Burrowes In early 2011, as the Arab Spring was moving across North Africa and the Middle East, small groups of nonviolent activists in...

Is Soros Funding the Trump Protests?

Paid instigators are making an already bad situation much much worse. As riots and protests rage through the streets of America, the question has to...

Trump the Arsonist

The world according to Donald Trump is very dark indeed. The American economy has tanked. Mexico has sent a horde of criminals over the...

The Imperial Prez’s Toolbox of Terror

“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”—Richard Nixon Presidents don’t give up power. Executive orders don’t expire at the end of...

White Lives Matter?

In Its Own Words “What happens to blacks in this country at the hand of law enforcement is none of our concern ... other than...

What Should We Do About Crimea?

Is Crimea about to explode? The mainstream media reports that Russia has amassed troops on the border with Ukraine and may...

We Live in Dangerous Times

We are sitting atop a volcano that could erupt at any moment. Indeed, the only question is not whether it will explode,...

British MP financed by group linked to failed Turkey coup

A British MP was paid thousands of pounds by a group allegedly linked to the failed Turkish military coup to write a report on...

Nice Brings to Mind Operation Gladio

Commentators who have learned to distrust official explanations, such as Peter Koenig and Stephen Lendman have raised questions about the Nice attack. It does seem...

Are You Prepared for Lockdown?

This summer is like a movie about how corruption took down a once-great republic and sent it barreling toward civil war. It’s about how the powerful now...

The military-industrial complex of Pakistan

Nauman Sadiq (RINF) - Before the signing of the Iran nuclear deal last year, BBC’s defense correspondent, Mark Urban, published a report that Pakistan’s...

General Breedlove and the Russophobes

The Roman republic began its descent into empire as victorious generals – starting with one Julius Caesar – returned to claim the...

Brazil’s post-Rousseff cabinet to include advocate of police repression

Via WSWS. This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News with permission or license. Miguel Andrade Brazilian vice-President Michel Temer has invited São Paulo State’s Public...

Dr. Jim Willie: Quantitative Easing Ushers in a Global Police State

In the interview below with Dr. Jim Willie, the topics Dr. Willie covers match up perfectly with an article James Hall wrote for Sleuth...

Congress Declares War

Passage of Senator Mitch McConnell’s authorization for war against ISIS will not only lead to perpetual US wars across the globe, it will also...

US drive to war with China dominates Philippine presidential election campaigns

By Joseph Santolan On January 10, the election season for the presidential election to be held on May 9 officially opened in the Philippines. At the...

New World Disorder

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. will clamor for such laws if their...

Chicago Police Adopt Israeli Tactics

Exclusive: The Chicago police slaying of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, like other recent police killings of blacks, may resemble the actions of an occupation military, in...

EU Approves Labeling for Israeli Settlement Products

by Stephen Lendman  (RINF) - Since June 1967, Israel established 125 illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land, home for about 600,000 settlers, many Zionist zealots,...

Paramilitary police in Miami force passengers to leave plane at gunpoint

By Andre Damon On Monday evening, an American Airlines flight from Miami, Florida to Barbados was boarded by a paramilitary police unit wielding assault rifles, who...

Israeli Military Court Justice: Rubber-Stamp Guilt

by Stephen Lendman (RINF) - All police states operate the same way. America is no different - nor Israel. Civil law applies for Israeli Jews -...

Protests mount against US-backed regime in Ukraine

(WSWS) - Protests mount against US-backed regime in Ukraine By Thomas Gaist 10 June 2015 In the latest eruption of mass protests against the US puppet government of Ukrainian...
video

Police And National Guard Invade Baltimore Streets

This is a glimpse of what a martial law scenario would look like with militarized police and national guard being deployed to quell the...

Paul Craig Roberts: Can Evil Be Defeated

Paul Craig Roberts RINF Alternative News John W. Whitehead is a constitutional attorney. As head of the Rutherford Institute he is actively involved in defending our...

THE GRAND ILLUSION – JOHN CHUCKMAN

    THE GRAND ILLUSION The truth is that the risk of an American being killed by terrorism is close to zero, having been calculated at 1:20,000,000   John...

Obama: War Criminal, Tyrant, Torturer, Racist, Corporate Tool, World-Class Thug

Stephen Lendman  RINF Alternative News His record speaks for itself. Ideologically over-the-top. Lawless. Reckless. Ruthless by any standard. Reflecting the worst of rogue leadership. Mocking democratic values....

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces

Nick Barrickman There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice. Charles de Montesquieu ** In...

Vaccines Cause Cancer, Autism & Other Deadly Diseases

“I have no hesitation in stating that in my judgment the most frequent disposing condition for cancerous development is infused into the blood by...

The Zionist Elephant in the Room of Geopolitics

The Western World is becoming ‘progressively’ more pathologically austere as an expression of the degeneration of Democracy; as a disease incorporating the transfer of...

Why Isn’t America “As Mad As Hell” And Unwilling To “Take It Anymore”?

Dave Hodges RINF Alternative News Howard Bloom, Yale literature professor and cultural critic, recently stated “I am 79 years old and I have never seen this...

How Ebola Will Irreversibly Transform America

Dave Hodges RINF Alternative News Instead of protecting America, this administration is sending 3,000 soldiers, untrained in dealing with Ebola outbreaks, to Africa for reasons that...

Ukraine Government Officially Introduces Slavery, with Vague Terms

Eric Zuesse On 23 September 2014, the Ukrainian Ministry of Social Policy announced official civilian slavery, via an obscure press release, headlined "The Government has extended...

CIA, NSA And Facebook Create ‘Threat Matrix Score’ On Every American

Dave Hodges RINF Alternative News Participation on Facebook could prove very dangerous to your future well-being. There is a reason that Facebook is aligned with both...

9/11: The Mother of All Big Lies

Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News They're an American tradition. They date from the republic's inception. Notable ones began in the mid-19th century. They facilitated annexing Texas. Half...

The Blueprint For World War III

Dave Hodges RINF Alternative News This article is the first of a two part series which details the coming war. This war will not be a...

Millions of Americans Are Vulnerable to Starvation

Dave Hodges RINF Alternative News The cost of food has been steadily increasing in places like Thailand and Venezuela as evidenced by the fact that since the beginning of...

Federal judge will not stop “keep moving” order

Tom Carter  On Monday, a federal judge refused to order a halt to the arbitrary “keep moving” rule imposed by the police on residents and...

Ukrainian government forces deploy heavy weaponry as they encircle Donetsk

Julie Hyland Ukrainian government forces have encircled Donetsk and are preparing a major offensive against the city, reportedly deploying heavy weaponry, including short-range missile launchers. The...

Other Enemies of Freedom

Lenin Nightingale  RINF Alternative News The System Lords do not enslave you as conquerors in battle, but by ink and stealth. When Lord Obama was elected...

Militarized Homeland Security Invasion of Town Was Over Downloading of Indecent Images

The Department of Homeland Security’s militarized invasion of a small town in Illinois was not in response to a gang of dangerous drug dealers...

The US Military Is Playing The Nuclear Blackmail Card Against UN Occupation Forces

Dave Hodges RINF Alternative News Bravo Sierra is a term which can be best applied to the report that the “organic” United States is going to rise up...

Meet The Man Who Will Be In Charge Of The UN Takeover Of America

Dave Hodges  RINF Alternative News In Part One, I detailed how the United Nations is posturing to seize American guns as a prelude to martial law. If...

UN Accelerates Plan For Global Gun Confiscation After Collapse

The United Nations is gearing up for gun confiscation in the event of a societal collapse in numerous countries by hiring “disarmament, demobilization and...

British Police Use Fake Town to Prep For Riots

Images show cops confronting "angry mobs" during social unrest British police are utilizing a fake town in Kent to prepare for riots staged by “angry...

Why Should Anyone Trust a Government That Kills, Maims, Tortures, Lies, Spies, Cheats, and...

 “Why should anyone trust a government that has condoned torture, spied on at least 35 world leaders, supports indefinite detention, places bugs in thousands of computers all over the world, kills innocent people with drone attacks, promotes the post office to log mail for law enforcement agencies and arbitrarily authorizes targeted assassinations? Or, for that […]

Chris Hedges: The Rules of Revolt

There are some essential lessons we can learn from the student occupation of Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, which took place 25 years ago. The 1989...

Thai Hunger Games, 3D Ear, DIY Broadband — New World Next Week

var l_height = 3*43+46; jQuery(document).ready(function(){ie7_css_correct();});CLICK HERE for the mp3 audio of this video. Welcome to http://NewWorldNextWeek.com — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the m...

Defamation Suits Used to Bludgeon Southeast Asian Bloggers and Independent Press

With almost double the population of the United States–packed into a much smaller land area–the eleven countries of Southeast Asia are home to more...

Interview 899 — New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

This week on New World Next Week: Life imitates art as the Hunger Games salute comes to Thailand; it's WTF? as Van Gogh's ear recreated with 3D printer; and German villagers take their power back by creating their own broadband network.

Obama backs state terror against eastern Ukraine

Bill Van Auken Meeting with Ukraine’s billionaire President-Elect Petro Poroshenko in Warsaw Wednesday, President Barack Obama declared his full backing for the regime’s so-called “anti-terrorism...

What Will Happen When the Dollar Collapses?

Will It Be a False Flag Attack Or a Currency Collapse? Hitler initiated a false flag event and burned down the Reichstag to gain control...

FBI arrests acquaintance of Boston Marathon bombing suspect

Nick Barrickman US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents on Friday arrested a 23-year-old Kyrgyzstani national who is said to have been a close acquaintance...

How Elites Hijack Democracy

Sonali Kolhatkar Mass street protests are usually seen as a hallmark of democratic aspirations. And elections are meant to be a culmination of such aspirations,...

The US and Thailand’s military coup

The US response to last week’s military coup in Thailand was utterly cynical. Secretary of State John Kerry declared that he was “disappointed by...

Oil Rig War, Demographic Winter, Thai Regime Change — Asia-Pacific Perspective

Welcome back to The Asia-Pacific Perspective, that monthly show where James Corbett of corbettreport.com and Broc West of apperspective.net break down all the latest news and headlines from the Asia-Pacific region. In this month’s conversation: S...

How they would stage a bioterror event

How they would stage a bioterror event by Jon Rappoport May 18, 2014 www.nomorefakenews.com There are future scenarios which, with enough exposure before they happen, can be stopped, or at least analyzed correctly when they occur. A staged bioterror event is one of those. The primary fact is: no matter what kind of germ you’re […]

How they would stage a bioterror event

How they would stage a bioterror event by Jon Rappoport May 18, 2014 www.nomorefakenews.com There are future scenarios which, with enough exposure before they happen, can be stopped, or at least analyzed correctly when they occur. A staged bioterror event is one of those. The primary fact is: no matter what kind of germ you’re […]

These Men Are Training To Put You and Your Family In a FEMA Camp

Dave Hodges I have never received more vitriolic email since I ran the John Moore declaration about Russian commandos coming into country. However, I have...

Leaked Documents Reveal Marine Corps ‘Urban Training Center’ Based on U.S. Town

Mikael Thalen Newly leaked Marine Corps’ documents detail yet another military urban training center that more closely resembles a small U.S. town than a foreign...