U.S. Food Rationing? Urgent Global Shortage Hits Home (Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience.com, April 21, 2008) The global food shortage is already at crisis stage in many countries. Now it seems poised to hit home. And we’re not just talking about price hikes. Just as U.S. residents accept the inevitability of one dreaded R-word, recession, another one may loom: rationing. . . . First, the global outlook: After months of sounding alarms, today U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said "the world has consumed more than it has produced" over the last three years and "the problem is big." Ban said today the world must urgently increase food production. . . . The New York Sun reports today: Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply. There are also anecdotal reports that some consumers are hoarding grain stocks. . . . Meantime, genetically altered crops suddenly don’t face the opposition they did. [COMMENT by Lorenzo: So, is the current food "crisis" something that has been manufactured by the genetically altered proponents?] . . . Worth noting again that potatoes are making a comeback amid all this turmoil. There are many causes to this suddenly acute problem, but the root of it all is the burgeoning population. For more background on all this, see my entry last month: The Axis of Evil Shortages: Food, Water, Fuel. . . . Read more!
I was deeply involved in the POW issue, and I know many of the people in this video, all of whom are truthful people. It was McCain and Kerry who put the final nail into the coffins of over 300 POWs left behind in Viet Nam.
Ms. Clinton Uses Rove's Dirty Tricks to Destroy the Democrats (Gary Hart, The Huffington Post, March 7, 2008) By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her. . . . "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters. . . . If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition. . . .
SOME COMMENTS FROM READERS OF THE ABOVE POST: The big problem here is that hillary doesn't play by the same rules as everybody else. It only has two rules, as follows: 1) trash anybody that stands in the way of your power lust 2) see rule #1 . . . hillary clinton spent 35 years learning how to trash the women that her husband had affairs with. Sometimes the trashing just made them just go away; sometimes it worked by coercing the women take bribes to be silent. This is the 35 years that it says it will bring to the White House.
Gary Hart's comments are brilliant and directly to the point of this woman's candidacy which is POWER. She is power-hungry and will go to any lengths simply to win. She is a disgrace to the Democratic Party.
I think Hillary has amply demonstrated that she (and Bill) will do just about anything to get back in the Whitehouse. She, as Bill Bradly rightly points out, is an unknown quantity when is comes to undisclosed scandal. Why won't she release her tax returns? Why does the Clinton Library refuse to release documents on pardons or big donors to the Clinton Library? And why have we still not seen the Whitehouse logs of just exactly Hillary's much lauded 35 year sof experience actually amounted to? YOu can guess why? The same reason Dick Cheney would not release the identities of who attended his energy policy summit, and went all the way to the Supreme Court to block those disclosures. You want more executive priviledge and classified documents? That's what you'll get with Hillary.
I don't understand how anyone hoping to escape the Bush/Cheney dungeon of the past 7 years can continue to support her after the way she's comported herself; especially recently. I was four-square behind her candidacy until she actually started running. Then I was like, whoa. no thanks! I wanted a female president because I thought a woman's perspective would bring a new way of running this country and dealing with the world. Instead all we have in her is a sleaze-ball man with different plumbing.
Clinton has her die hard supporters. They are going to support her no matter what kind of monstrous behavior she exhibits. I cannot believe that the rest of the Dems are going to vote for her after weasel words praising McCain over Obama. During Bush's tenure I would think "could it get any worse?" AND IT WOULD! I have found myself thinking the same thing about Clinton, and this last episode has shown that it could get worse. What will be even worse, is her getting the nomination with this kind of politicking. We would most likely end up with McCain as president, or even worse...HER.
Hillary Clinton's primary loyalty is to her unending ambition and her actions say that if she can't have the nomination, then no other Democratic nominee will either. Her devotion to herself is sickening and the distortions & misrepresentations that she has leveled against Senator Obama are appalling and really speak of a desire to win at any cost!The cost, of course, will be the Democrats losing the general election to a man who wants our military to be in Iraq for a hundred years and now foresees our country invading Iran! Is it any wonder that people in the world view us as invading marauders.....it's unfortunate that the Clinton's can't see the devastation that their behavior will bring upon us, but the thirst for total power is all consuming and I really think that dynasty's should be limited to NFL or sports teams and not families in politics!
I've gotten to the point, after a life-time of being a Democrat and holding my nose to vote for someone I' m not too keen on, that, if Hillary DOES end up as the Dem. nominee, I think I'm not voting. For the first time ever since I could vote. Yes, it's that bad.. . . Read more!
CAROLINE KENNEDY: "A President Like My Father" (CAROLINE KENNEDY, New York Times, January 27, 2008) Over the years, I've been deeply moved by the people who've told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama. . . . My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals. . . . Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible. . . . We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn't that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960. . . . Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual. . . . Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process. . . . I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility. . . . Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning. . . . Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning. . . . I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved. . . . I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.. . . Read more!
This is the scariest question of all. Myspace is the largest private opt-in database on the planet. We willingly register ourselves, our thoughts, ideas and interests. We upload photos of ourselves, our children and families. We link ourselves to our friends, family, organizations, telling where we live, our relationship status, religion, age, sexual preference, employment, which schools we attended, etc. We feed all of this into the biggest computer networked propaganda machine ever developed all in the name of social networking. A machine owned and operated by friend and supporter of G.W. Bush and his "war on terror" All ready there are numerous reports extreme as people going to jail, because of the contents of their Myspace page? What will be next?
A few good sites dedicated to the Myspace censorship problem. freemyspace.com
The presidency is now a criminal conspiracy (Keith Olberman, 11-05-07) It is a fact startling in its cynical simplicity and it requires cynical and simple words to be properly expressed: The presidency of George W. Bush has now devolved into a criminal conspiracy to cover the ass of George W. Bush. . . . All the petulancy, all the childish threats, all the blank-stare stupidity; all the invocations of World War III, all the sophistic questions about which terrorist attacks we wanted him not to stop, all the phony secrets; all the claims of executive privilege, all the stumbling tap-dancing of his nominees, all the verbal flatulence of his apologists... All of it is now, after one revelation last week, transparently clear for what it is: the pathetic and desperate manipulation of the government, the refocusing of our entire nation, toward keeping this mock president and this unstable vice president and this departed wildly self-overrating attorney general, and the others, from potential prosecution for having approved or ordered the illegal torture of prisoners being held in the name of this country. . . . Thus Alberto Gonzales has to use that brain that sounds like an old car trying to start on a freezing morning to undo eight centuries of the forward march of law and government. . . . Thus Dick Cheney has to ridiculously assert that confirming we do or do not use any particular interrogation technique would somehow help the terrorists. . . . Thus Michael Mukasey, on the eve of the vote that will make him the high priest of the law of this land, cannot and must not answer a question, nor even hint that he has thought about a question, which merely concerns the theoretical definition of waterboarding as torture. . . . Because, Mr. Bush, in the seven years of your nightmare presidency, this whole string of events has been transformed. . . . From its beginning as the most neglectful protection ever of the lives and safety of the American people ... into the most efficient and cynical exploitation of tragedy for political gain in this country's history ... and, then, to the giddying prospect that you could do what the military fanatics did in Japan in the 1930s and remake a nation into a fascist state so efficient and so self-sustaining that the fascism would be nearly invisible. . . . But at last this frightful plan is ending with an unexpected crash, the shocking reality that no matter how thoroughly you might try to extinguish them, Mr. Bush, how thoroughly you tried to brand disagreement as disloyalty, Mr. Bush, there are still people like Daniel Levin who believe in the United States of America as true freedom, where we are better, not because of schemes and wars, but because of dreams and morals. . . . And ultimately these men, these patriots, will defeat you and they will return this country to its righteous standards, and to its rightful owners, the people.
[NOTE: It would be worth your time to click the link above and watch a video of the complete special comment by the only news person who can still be called an American Patriot.]. . . Read more!
US Congress Passes 'Thought Crime' Law (Col. DAN SMITH, Counterpunch, October 25 2007) Congresswoman Jane Harman has introduced legislation--H.R. 1955: "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism"--that is expected to be referred to the House Rules Committee for assignment of floor time for debate by the House. This is a bill that is unneeded, unwise, and unfortunately will pass and be signed into law as it purports to be part of the response to 9/11 and the global war on terror. [COMMENT by Lorenzo: Now why, do you think, it will soon be the law of the land that it is a crime to even question the official story about 9/11. Why are they afraid people might think and talk about those events?] . . . At base, Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights. No where is this more clear than in the third introductory paragraph (the "where as" section) that provides the context for the action desired. Specifically, this legislation aims at the unregulated nature of the Internet: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens." . . . Moreover, Harman is telling the American public, citizens and permanent residents, that they are too dumb to recognize hate speech, demonizing rhetoric, and propaganda, and are so morally immature that they are not capable of knowing when to "blow off" terrorists and their messages designed to incite large scale insurrection. . . . One also gets the impression that Harman believes that terrorist criminality has become so wide and the number of people who mentally entertain thoughts of non-compliance with authority so numerous that the country is about to teeter into chaos. . . . HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. . . . IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs. . . . The key is in the last definition. The history of democracy is that over time, government encroaches so much into the lives of its people that government itself becomes the problem. Consider that in the 1770s, had the U.S. been a country with a law that criminalized the "threatened use of violence," every one of the Founding Fathers who participated in the Boston Tea Party organized into the Minute Men detachments or refused to accede to the British soldiers foraging on private property would have been guilty of "violent radicalization" and of promoting "ideologically based violence." . . . What has become an "extremist belief" in some circles within the government is democracy. Look again at the three definitions. Do they not directly challenge one of the most fundamental rights that many in the U.S. trace back to time immemorial: the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms"? Again, a people who have access to firearms inherently pose a "threat" to any government, even one with a standing army at its beck and call. And the more centralized the power of the ruler (e.g., the unitary presidency), the greater the temptation to seize the weapons--and the rights--of its citizens.. . . Read more!
FED ATTEMPTS TO BAIL OUT BANKRUPT WALL STREET SPECULATORS; CHENEY DEMANDS STAGED TERROR ATTACKS, WAR WITH IRAN
WALL STREET DERIVATIVES MONSTERS TOO BIG TO BAIL OUT
DOW 36,000 IN SIGHT THANKS TO HYPERINFLATION
DEATH AGONY OF THE US DOLLAR
NO MORE ZERO INTEREST LOANS FROM TOKYO
PANIC DUMPING OF DOLLAR AND HYPERINFLATION LOOM
THE PAULSON-BERNANKE PLUNGE PROTECTION TEAM IN ACTION
SYSTEMIC BREAKDOWN CRISIS
NOT JUST ONE BANKRUPT HEDGE FUND, BUT TWO DOZEN -- FOR STARTERS
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG: FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN TROUBLE
HOW TO STOP THE DEPRESSION
THE UPTICK RULE OF 1934 ABOLISHED JUST IN TIME FOR THE PANIC
WORLDWIDE ASSET BUBBLE
THE COLLAPSE OF AUTO AT THE ROOT OF TODAY'S CRISIS
BREAKDOWN STAGE OF GLOBALIZATION
THE FOUR TRILLION DOLLAR HEDGE FUND BUYOUT ORGY OF 2006
CONTRACTION IN REAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE USA
HARBINGERS: FREIGHT CAR LOADINGS DOWN 4.2%; TRUCKLOAD VOLUME DOWN 5%
SLAP A SECURITIES TRANSFER TAX ON WALL STREET
CREDIT FOR JOBS AND PRODUCTION, NOT FINANCIAL BAILOUTS
NEEDED: CHEAP FEDERAL CREDIT FOR REAL PRODUCTION
CHENEY'S THERMONUCLEAR BAILOUT The disintegration of the dollar system is ultimately one of the strongest factors impelling Cheney's controllers meaning the George Shultz-Rupert Murdoch faction of the US-UK ruling elite. From Cheney's point of view, an economic depression requires drastic austerity measures to drive the standard of living down even further below its present reduced level, with the proceeds going to the finance oligarchs. Can these cuts in the standard of living be accomplished under the present system? If not, what kind of dictatorship can be used to impose them? This is, after all, the reason the German financiers like Schacht turned to Hitler. The Cheney doctrine calls for a staged terror attack in the US using WMD, followed by an attack on Iran and the declaration of martial law under Bush's many executive orders. As I pointed out on July 21 in my "Cheney Determined to Strike in US with WMD this Summer," there are many signs that the neocon group is driving hard to implement the Cheney doctrine this summer.
Thom Hartmann has reported on Air America that lawmakers with whom he has spoken report that the US intelligence community continues to issue warnings to the Congress that a new terrorist attack is coming. According to one unconfirmed report, a US Senator is reported to have told an impeachment activist that the Democrats could not impeach Bush-Cheney, because the senators were being threatened with "them blowing up seven US cities" a possible reference to statements by Juval Aviv, a veteran Israeli intelligence fixture. Aviv warned on August 2 that there would be a new terrorist attack on the US within no more than 90 days, with multiple targets: "What they're going to do is hit six, seven or eight cities simultaneously to show sophistication and really hit the public. This time, which is the message of the day, it will not only be big cities. They're going to try to hit rural America."
The McClatchy newspaper chain is reporting that Cheney is continuing to push behind the scenes for an attack on Iran: "Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching air strikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy."(Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef, "Cheney urging strikes on Iran," McClatchy Newspapers, August 10, 2007)
A MIRROR FOR CHENEY: THE FÜHRERKONFERENZ OF AUGUST 22, 1939
IS A STRIKE WAVE COMING IN THE US? Forty years of passivity, demoralization, apathy and defeat weigh heavy on the US population. But the mass strike may not be as far away as is generally supposed. A veteran organizer for the United Auto Workers observed in the 1980s that Americans were never going to rise up in mass action, because they were too concerned that one missed paycheck would result in eviction from their homes. Suddenly, 10 million or more have nothing left to lose, and they may soon be joined by many more. A mass strike cannot be decreed by bureaucrats, nor is it totally spontaneous. It requires thorough preparation, but it is likely to be detonated by an outside event, often of the most unpredictable type. The only thing to do is to keep up a campaign of mass political education about the vast possibilities of a general strike, especially in response to an illegal war and/or an unconstitutional dictatorship, of the type which Cheney's controllers so ardently desire.
Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state (Muriel Kane, The Raw Story, July 19, 2007) Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies. . . . He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War -- by quoting the "strong words" which open Roberts' latest column: "Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran." . . . "I don't actually think they're very strong," said Roberts of his words. "I get a lot of flak that they're understated and the situation is worse than I say. . . . When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] ... there's no check to it. It doesn't have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. ... The American people don't really understand the danger that they face." . . . Roberts believes instead that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the War on Terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party. "Something's in the works," he said, adding that the Executive Orders need to create a police state are already in place. . . . "The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," Roberts continued. "Chertoff has predicted them. ... The National Intelligence Estimate is saying that al Qaeda has regrouped. ... You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda's not going to do it, it's going to be orchestrated. ... The Republicans are praying for another 9/11." . . . "Americans think their danger is terrorists," said Roberts. "They don't understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. ... The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren't able to perceive that." . . . Americans need to comprehend and look at how ruthless Cheney is. ... A person like that would do anything." . . . Roberts final suggestion was that, in the absence of a massive popular outcry, "the only constraints on what's going to happen will come from the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military. They may have had enough. They may not go along with it." . . . The full audio of Thom Hartmann's interview with Paul Craig Roberts can be found here.
New Laws Enslave American People (Sorcha Faal, May 28, 2007) In an unprecedented move against the freedoms of American citizens, their government, these past few weeks, has launched a series of new measures which guarantee the virtual enslavement of every human being within the borders of the United States. . . . These actions began with the United States President, George Bush, signing of one of the most chilling documents in modern history, and which when enacted grants total power to the American Presidency and its 'Shadow Government' above the citizens and lawmakers in the United States. . . . This National security directive signed by the American War Leader, and as described by the Washington Post News Service, gives total power of the United States to 100 'secret' operatives that since September 11, 2001 have been 'rotating secretly' throughout their country ready to assume total power when they are next attacked or suffer a catastrophic natural disaster. . . . Also, and according to this same Washington Post News Service report, these 100 'secret' future leaders of the American people will be lead by a woman named Frances Fragos Townsend . . . It is important, at this point, to further elaborate on Frances Fragos Townsend as she has been one of the principal 'players' behind the Clinton/Bush CIA Cabal that has effectively overthrown the legitimate government of the Untied States during these past 15 years, and with the planned election to the Presidency of Hillary Clinton will continue their despotic rule over the American people. . . . To the full, and shocking, consequences to the American people of being led by such a vast, and wide ranging, cast of International Criminals our World has not seen since the takeover of the German Republic in 1933 by Nazis led by Adolph Hitler; and which when examined in its fullest details clearly show that the same type of Fascist corporate government instilled by the Nazis against the German peoples is fast becoming today’s reality for the Americans. . . . As the steel claws of the American Eagle, and which once stood as a symbol of freedom and liberty, continues its tight embrace around the very souls of the American people, one cannot help but wonder, in amazement, at how docile these people have become, even to the point, and like the German people before them, of marching in military lockstep towards the abyss totally ignorant of the holocaust that awaits them. . . . May God have mercy upon them all. . . . Read more!
Denying the Right to Choose (Editorial, New York Times, April 19, 2007) Among the major flaws in yesterday's Supreme Court decision giving the federal government power to limit a woman's right to make decisions about her health was its fundamental dishonesty. . . . Under the modest-sounding guise of following existing precedent, the majority opinion - written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito - gutted a host of thoughtful lower federal court rulings, not to mention past Supreme Court rulings. . . . It severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth. The justices went so far as to eviscerate the crucial requirement, which dates to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman's health. . . . As far as we know, Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors. [COMMENT by Lorenzo: However, they are all Catholics and are sworn to uphold their religion, which prohibits abortion. It seems to me that they are more loyal to the Pope than they are to the U.S. Constitution and to American women.] Yet these five male justices felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown. Instead, they ratified the politically based and dangerously dubious Congressional claim that criminalizing the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy - the so-called partial-birth method - would never pose a significant health risk to a woman. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found the procedure to be medically necessary in certain cases. . . . Justice Kennedy actually reasoned that banning the procedure was good for women in that it would protect them from a procedure they might not fully understand in advance and would probably come to regret. . . . Far from being compelled by the court's precedents, Justice Ginsburg aptly objected, the new ruling is so at odds with its jurisprudence — including a concurring opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who has now been succeeded by Justice Alito) when a remarkably similar state abortion ban was struck down just seven years ago — that it should not have staying power. . . . For anti-abortion activists, this case has never been about just one controversial procedure. They have correctly seen it as a wedge that could ultimately be used to undermine and perhaps eliminate abortion rights eventually. The court has handed the Bush administration and other opponents of women’s reproductive rights the big political victory they were hoping to get from the conservative judges Mr. Bush has added to the bench. It comes at a real cost to the court’s credibility, its integrity and the rule of law.
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack (Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, TimesOnline, February 25, 2007) SOME of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. . . . Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack. . . . "There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran," a source with close ties to British intelligence said. "There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible." . . . A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. "All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them." . . . A generals' revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. "American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired," said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders. . . . The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not "be right to take military action against Iran". . . . A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: "The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack." . . . But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was "zero chance" of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive. . . . Pace's view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government's involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was "far from clear". . . . Hillary Mann, the National Security Council's main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace's repudiation of the administration's claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top. . . . "He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier," she said. "It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon." . . . Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being "seriously careful" in the Gulf. . . . According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. . . . However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.. . . Read more!
U.S. Empire Slides Toward Coup, Bankruptcy (Michael Glennon, Bloomberg, February 9, 2007) In Chalmers Johnson's unrelentingly grim view, today's dire global conditions are largely the fault of an arrogant, increasingly militarized U.S. bent on expanding its global empire. . . . If, as you read the preceding sentence, you find yourself nodding in agreement, you may well admire "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic". For an Asia specialist who taught at the University of California for 30 years, Johnson sounds surprisingly like Michael Moore. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, in his view, has become the "private army" of the "Boy Emperor from Crawford, Texas." America doesn't have allies; it has "satellites." The U.S. Air Force has become an "overlord of the globe," and the whole country is headed toward a possible military coup or, more probable in Johnson's view, bankruptcy. "Arrogant and misguided American policies have headed us for a series of catastrophes comparable to our disgrace and defeat in Vietnam or even to the sort of extinction that befell our former fellow 'superpower,' the Soviet Union," he writes. "Such a fate is probably by now unavoidable." . . . Johnson sees signs of rot everywhere. In today's America, he asserts, constitutional checks and balances are in tatters. Government power is concentrated in an imperial presidency protected by the CIA. Congress is corrupt, addicted to lobbyists' money and pork-barrel spending. The judiciary is cowed. Unchecked militarism has spawned a war economy that will inevitably collapse. . . . The U.S. today, "like the Roman Republic in the first century BC, is threatened by an out-of-control military- industrial complex and a huge secret government," Johnson writes. Rome's Republic, he reminds us, was destroyed and replaced by the ultimately unsustainable Roman Empire. Something similar might be in store for the U.S., he warns. . . . What does the future hold? There is some hope, Johnson says, if Americans, like the British after World War II, come to terms with the inherent weaknesses of an imperial strategy, "and keep our democracy by giving up our empire." . . . Yet Johnson doesn't place much faith in the potential for political change, writing that he can't imagine "any president or Congress" defying the interests of the overpowering military-industrial complex.. . . Read more!
9-11 Anomalies [Click the link above for more details] Indications of Foreknowledge Pre-attack put-option surges anticipated post-attack stock declines. Put/call ratios on American Airlines and United Airlines stock increased five-fold and twenty-fold. . . . High officials avoided the attack targets. . . . John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial flights. . . . Salman Rushdie, Willie Brown, and Pentagon officials were warned not to fly on the eve of the attack. On 9/11/01 Warren Buffett, an investor in unmanned aerial vehicle maker MITRE, hosted a breakfast meeting of WTC CEOs at Offutt AFB, where President Bush later landed that day. . . . The World Trade Center and Pentagon were anticipated terrorist targets. . . . War game scenarios targeted the WTC and Pentagon. The use of jet-liners as weapons was anticipated. . . . Military's Non-Response The official story posits a long series of improbable failures. . . . The official time-lines blame the FAA for inexplicably long delays in notifying the military, after originally claiming to have been notified sooner but without specific locations. . . . Jets were not scrambled from nearest bases. . . . Jets in the air were not vectored to intercept jet-liners. . . . According to NORAD and 9/11 Commission time-lines, military jets flew at small fractions of their top speeds. Claims that hijacked jet-liners couldn't be tracked contrasts with ability of the FAA to land over 4000 aircraft at different destinations in 2 hours. At least 4 simultaneous war game exercises were being conducted on 9/11/01 which added much confusion. . . . The NRO exercise involved a plane-crash-into-building scenario. . . . Operations Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian used scenarios involving hijacked passenger planes. . . . After presiding over the worst air defence failure in US history, the commander of NORAD, head of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of Defense were awarded with promotions and budget increases. . . . Pentagon Attack Anomalies The Pentagon was left undefended until after being hit at 9:38. . . . The Pentagon should be the best-defended building in the world. . . . The Pentagon was hit more than 80 minutes into the attack. . . . It is just 10 miles from Andrews Air Force Base. . . . Cheney watched the attack plane approach from 50 miles out. . . . The attack targeted Wedge 1 of Pentagon's west wing. . . . Wedge 1 was sparsely occupied, nearing completion of renovation. . . . Wedge 1 was the only one that had blast-hardened walls. . . . The top brass was in the opposite side of the Pentagon. . . . The alleged suicide pilots lacked the requisite piloting skills. . . . The attack manoeuvre required extreme piloting skill. . . . None of the alleged hijackers had flown jets. . . . Hani Hanjour, alleged pilot of Flight 77, was a notoriously bad pilot. . . . Total Collapse of WTC Building 7 Is the only case of total collapse of large steel-framed high-rise building blamed on fire. . . . The collapse had all of the features of a controlled demolition implosion. . . . It fell straight down with precise radial symmetry. . . . Its rapid fall was within 10% of gravitational free-fall speed. . . . It collapsed into a tidy rubble pile mostly within the block that the building occupied. . . . Total Destruction of the Twin Towers Symmetry and thoroughness of destruction rules out natural processes. . . . Dozens of fire-fighters described explosions and likened the falls of the Towers to controlled demolitions. . . . Exhibited main features of controlled demolitions. . . . The destruction was total, leaving no parts of the Towers intact. . . . The falls began precipitously after loud explosions were heard. . . . Energetic jets of gas and dust emerged from the facade. . . . Destruction of Towers was more thorough than conventional demolitions. . . . The explosions of Towers were up to 800 feet in diameter. . . . The rubble was shards of metal and dust. . . . More than 1000 bodies were "vaporised". . . . Extreme temperatures persisted in the rubble for 3 months. . . . Suppression and Destruction of Evidence The World Trade Center steel was systematically destroyed. . . . Controlled Demolition Inc's plan for recycling steel was submitted 11 days after the attack, and approved. . . . Most of the steel was shipped to Asia for recycling. . . . Investigators were barred from the crime scene, and saw little of the steel. . . . None of the contents of the 8 black boxes from the hijacked jet-liners has been released. . . . Scores of videos from around Pentagon were confiscated and never released. . . . The NTSB was not allowed to investigate crashes. . . . Overt Omissions in Official Reports The 9/11 Commission made hundreds of glaring omissions. . . . The Report makes no mention of Building 7. . . . It called the structural cores of Twin Towers "hollow steel shaft[s]." . . . It did not mention the privatisation of the World Trade Center six weeks before the attack. . . . NIST avoided the core issue of the 'collapses'. . . . It did not consider events beyond when the Towers were "poised for collapse." . . . It did not demonstrate that computer models predicted "collapse initiation." . . . Read more!
US sitting on credit 'volcano' (Damian Reece, Davos, The Sydney Moring Herald, January 26, 2007) LEADING US commentators have warned that America is facing grave threats from a "crash" resulting from the country's huge entitlements bill while the rising level of consumer debt supporting the economy is a volcano "waiting to explode". . . . Jay Nordlinger, a former speech writer for President George Bush, who is now managing editor of the National Review, said the benefits bill must be tackled. "There is a great crash coming," he said, reflecting rising concern over the rising health-care entitlements that have crippled employers such as General Motors and Ford. . . . In a wide-ranging debate at the Davos conference, delegates discussed the most pressing issues facing President Bush, including Iran and Iraq as well as how the US deals with China. . . . Commenting on the economic and business outlook for the US, Arianna Huffington, a blogger shaping debate in the US in the run-up to the presidential election, said: "The amount of personal debt is a volcano waiting to explode. The number of bankruptcies is staggering." . . . She highlighted the trend of many people relying on credit to fund basic day-to-day purchases. "If there is going to be a housing downturn it's just going to be pretty disastrous for many families right now. The savings rate is close to zero. The best business to be in right now is renting out storage space. People store purchases that they don't have room for in their homes." . . . Ms Huffington expressed anxiety in America that the consumer had been driving economic growth in recent years but at the expense of economic security in the future. . . . Harvard University's David Gergen said: "One serious flaw in economic policy is paying enough attention to the people who are getting hurt. It is going to create a lot of social tension in our country over time.". . . Read more!
Bush is already among the walking dead (Rob Kall, OpEdNews.com, December 15, 2006) if the Republican party is to survive, it must face the fact that Bush and Cheney have been the worst executive team ever to hold office. The Republicans must face the reality that their party could literally become extinct if they passively sit by and allow Bush and Cheney to continue the incredibly destructive job of leadership they have been doing the past six years. . . . It is not just about saving their party. It is about saving the nation. The US is no longer tumbling down an economic and diplomatic fall. It is plummetting down, losing economic viability, losing allies, becoming the planetary pariah that was once the role of Bush. . . . Bush is already among the walking dead. His secretary of state is one of the most ineffective, useless ever. His appointees have, deservedly, earned the mistrust of the world. Why would anyone trust ANY of the appointees Bush has chosen? . . . Every day the Republicans in the congress continue to allow Bush to stay in office, they violate their duty to their constituents, to the nation, to the constitution, to international laws. . . . Now, it's understandable that the Republicans don't want to give up the last bastion of federal power they have, but failure to do will cost them even more dearly in 2008. . . . It is notable that no polling organizations are asking the question-- Will you vote for a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate in 2008? They're not asking because the answer will be devastating to the Republican party. Shame on the pollsters for not asking. Then again, having commissioned public opinion polls myself, I know that it may be that the questions are being asked, results gathered, but NOT reported. . . . Now, if the Republicans start facing their unpleasant reality, that they MUST initiate the removal from office of Bush and Cheney, it is likely that they will want to negotiate. They might want to get the Dems to authorize a replacement for Cheney, before Bush and Cheney resign. They might ask for approval of a Republican vice presidential replacement. . . . Read more!
Pentagon Evangelism Called 'National Security Threat' (Nathan Burchfiel, CNSNews.com, December 12, 2006) Christian military officers who share their faith at work in the Pentagon pose a threat to national security, according to a group that advocates for religious neutrality in the military. . . . Public displays of faith by high-ranking military officers project an image of a Christian nation waging war on non-Christians, both inside and outside the United States, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation said Monday. . . . This created an "internal national security issue every bit as great as the one we're fighting outwardly," said the organization's president, Mikey Weinstein. . . . "The jihadists, the insurrectionists, everybody from the head of Hamas, Hizballah, the Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, they see us as invading American imperialists and crusaders," he told a news conference in Washington, D.C. . . . In addition to creating a national security threat, Weinstein said, evangelistic efforts by Christian officers directed toward their colleagues or subordinates amounted to "coercion" and "fanatical unconstitutional religious persecution." . . . He called on incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates to investigate a promotional video for the Christian Embassy, an organization that ministers to members of Congress, ambassadors, presidential appointees and Pentagon officials. . . . Christian Embassy, established in 1975, works with government leaders "not only because of their personal needs, but also because of their position as decision-makers to influence our families and freedoms," according to its website. At the Pentagon, the group holds weekly prayer meetings and Bible studies every weekday. . . . In the promotional video cited by Weinstein, four generals and three colonels appear wearing their uniforms. Among them is Lt. Col. Lucious Morton, who says that Christian Embassy-led Bible studies benefit the military as a whole because they create "Godly men" who will lead others into battle. . . . Maj. Gen. Jack Catton also appears in the video and says he shares his faith with people he meets in his office: "I start with the fact that I'm an old-fashioned American, and my first priority is my faith in God, then my family, and then my country." . . . Weinstein said the video raises questions about whether the officers followed military regulations that restrict appearances in uniform for non-military purposes. . . . Their professions of faith violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws "respecting the establishment of religion," he argued. . . . Read more!
Zinn: The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism (Howard Zinn, 24 November 2006) [D]o you get the feeling sometime that you're living in an occupied country? Very often that's a feeling I get when I wake up in the morning. I think, "I'm living in an occupied country. A small group of aliens have taken over the country and are trying to do with it what they will, you know, and really are." I mean, they are alien to me. I mean, those people who are coming across the border from Mexico, they are not alien to me, you see. You know, Muslims who come to this country to live, they are not alien to me, you see. These demonstrations, these wonderful demonstrations that we have seen very recently on behalf of immigrant rights, say, and you've seen those signs saying, you know, "No human being is alien." And I think that's true. Except for the people in Washington, you see. . . . They've taken over the country. They've taken over the policy. They've driven us into two disastrous wars, disastrous for our country and even more disastrous for people in the Middle East. And they have sucked up the wealth of this country and given it to the rich, and given it to the multinationals, given it to Halliburton, given it to the makers of weapons. They're ruining the environment. And they're holding on to 10,000 nuclear weapons, while they want us to worry about the fact that Iran may, in ten years, get one nuclear weapon. You see, really, how mad can you be? . . . And the question is, how has this been allowed to happen? How have they gotten away with it? . . . for a short time, they captivated the minds of the American people. That's not true anymore. The American people have begun to understand what is going on and have turned against the policies in Washington, but of course they are still there. They are still in power. The question is, you know, how did they get away with that? . . . Göring [Hitler's second in command] said, "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country." . . . But the question is, how did they get away with it? What about the press? What about the media? Isn't it the job of the press, isn't it the job of the media, isn't it the job of journalism to expose what governments do? Don't journalists learn from I.F. Stone, who said, "Just remember two words," he said to young people who were studying journalism, he said, "Just remember two words: governments lie". Well, but the media have not picked up on that. The media have gone along, and they embraced the idea of weapons of mass destruction. You remember when Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations just before the onset of the Iraq war and laid out to the UN this litany of weaponry that Iraq possessed, according to him, and gave great details in how many canisters of this and how many tons of this, and so on and so forth. And the next day, the press was just aglow with praise. They didn't do their job of questioning. They didn't do their job of asking, "Where? What is your evidence? Where did you get this intelligence? Who did you talk to? What are your sources?" . . . Isn't this what you learn as a freshman in college? "Hey, what are your sources? Where are your footnotes?" No, no. They were just - the Washington Post said, "It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." And the New York Times, you know, it was just beside themselves with admiration for Colin Powell. Of course, it all turned out to be untrue, all turned out to be lies. But the press did not do its job, and as a result, the American people, watching television, reading the newspapers, had no alternative source of information, no alternative opinion, no alternative critical analysis of what was going on. . . . If people knew that history, they would never for a moment believe President Bush, when he says, oh, we're going into Iraq, you know, because of this reason and that reason and liberty and democracy, and they're a threat, you know. I mean, it takes - yeah, it takes some historical understanding to be skeptical of the things that authorities tell you. . . . When you know history, you know that governments lie, as I.F. Stone said. Governments lie all the time. Well, not just the American government. It's just in the nature of governments. Well, they have to lie. I mean, governments in general do not represent the people of the societies that they govern. And since they don't represent the people and since they act against the interest of the people, the only way they can hold power is if they lie to the people. If they told people the truth, they wouldn't last very long. So history can help in understanding deception and being skeptical and not rushing to embrace whatever the government tells you. . . . It's very important to know this, because the culture tries very hard to persuade us that we all have a common interest. If they use the language "national interest" - there's no national interest. There's their interest and our interest. National security - now, whose security? National defense, whose defense? All these words and phrases are used to try to encircle us all into a nice big bond, so that we will assume that the people who are the leaders of our country have our interests at heart. Very important to understand: no, they do not have our interests at heart. . . . But I want to suggest one thing: we have to think beyond Iraq and even beyond Iran. We don't want to have to struggle against this war and then against that war and then against the next war. We don't want to have an endless succession of antiwar movements. It gets tiring. And we need to think and talk and educate about the abolition of war itself, you see. . . . One of the things we can learn from history is that history is not only a history of things inflicted on us by the powers that be. History is also a history of resistance. It's a history of people who endure tyranny for decades, but who ultimately rise up and overthrow the dictator. We've seen this in country after country, surprise after surprise. Rulers who seem to have total control, they suddenly wake up one day, and there are a million people in the streets, and they pack up and leave. This has happened in the Philippines, in Yemen, all over, in Nepal. Million people in the streets, and then the ruler has to get out of the way. So, this is what we're aiming for in this country. . . . Everything we do is important. Every little thing we do, every picket line we walk on, every letter we write, every act of civil disobedience we engage in, any recruiter that we talk to, any parent that we talk to, any GI that we talk to, any young person that we talk to, anything we do in class, outside of class, everything we do in the direction of a different world is important, even though at the moment they seem futile, because that's how change comes about. Change comes about when millions of people do little things, which at certain points in history come together, and then something good and something important happens. . . . Read more!
U.S. Marine Corps Under Severe Stress (Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press, 23 November 2006) The Marine Corps may need to increase in size to sustain deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan without sacrificing needed training or putting undue stress on the corps, the new Marine commandant said Wednesday. . . . Gen. James Conway also warned that it could take years to adequately train and equip the Iraqi security forces — longer, perhaps, "than the timeline that we probably feel ... our country will support." . . . Conway said the current pace of Marine rotations to Iraq — seven months there and seven-to-nine months at home — is limiting other types of training that units can receive and could eventually prompt Marines to leave the service. . . . "There is stress on the individual Marines that is increasing, and there is stress on the institution to do what we are required to do, pretty much by law, for the nation," said Conway. . . . Conway would not rule out extending the Iraq tours for some Marine units if needed for a short period of time. Several Army units have been extended for several months, but the Marines have done that only rarely and for weeks rather than months. . . . Conway, who took on the Marines' top job just eight days ago, said there are two ways to deal with the ongoing stress on the Marines: "One is reducing the requirement, the other is potentially growing the force for what we call the long war." . . . There are currently about 180,000 active duty Marines. Just last week, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East said about 2,200 more of them were headed to Iraq's volatile western Anbar province in a short-term effort to shore up U.S. combat power there. . . . The commander, Gen. John Abizaid, also told Congress last week that the Army and Marine Corps are not big enough to sustain a substantial increase in Iraq, although he said adding 20,000 troops for a short period was possible. . . . Conway said that if a decision is made to increase the number of Marines in Iraq — currently about 23,000 of the 141,000 U.S. troops there — he has enough around the globe to respond. But he warned that there could be long-term repercussions. . . . "The payback is you can't maintain that surge. And it's probably going to have an adverse impact" on the ability to provide ready troops in the future, he said. . . . The Marines are also drawing up plans to send some reserve combat battalions back to Iraq for return tours as a way of relieving the strain on the active duty forces. If that is done, it would be the first time such Marine units would be returned to the war.. . . Read more!
The Dollar's Full-System Meltdown (Mike Whitney, Global Research, October 31, 2006) The U.S. Dollar is kaput. Confidence in the currency is eroding by the day. . . . A report in The Sydney Morning Herald stated, "Australia's Treasurer Peter Costello has called on East Asia's central bankers to 'telegraph' their intentions to diversify out of American investments and ensure an 'orderly adjustment'. Central banks in China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong have channeled immense foreign reserves into American government bonds, helping to prop up the US dollar and hold down interest rates," said Costello, but "the strategy has changed." . . . Indeed, the strategy has changed. The world has come to its senses and is moving away from the green slip of paper that is currently mired in $8.7 trillion of debt. . . . The central banks now want to reduce their USD reserves while trying to do as little damage to their own economies as possible. That'll be difficult. If a sell-off ensues, it will start a stampede for the exits. . . . There's little hope of an "orderly adjustment" as Costello opines; that's just false optimism. When the greenback begins listing; things will turn helter-skelter quickly. . . . The United States runs a $200 billion per year trade deficit with China. If they've "got enough" we're dead-ducks. After all, it doesn’t take a sell-off to kill the dollar, just unwillingness on the part of the main players to stop purchasing at the same rate. . . . Of course, everyone in Washington already knew that doomsday was approaching. That's the way the system was designed from the very beginning. It's all part of the madcap scheme to "starve the beast" and transfer the nation's wealth to a handful of western plutocrats. That explains why the Fed and the White House whirred along like two spokes on the same wheel; every policy calculated to thrust the country headlong toward disaster. . . . The administration never created a funding mechanism for the $400 million tax cuts or for the 35% expansion of the Federal government. Defense spending increased by leaps and bounds as did the "no-bid" contracts for friends of the Bush clan. At the same time, interest rates were lowered to rock-bottom to put as much money as possible into the hands of people who couldn't meet the traditional criteria for a mortgage. And, if gluttonous waste, reckless overspending and "Mickey Mouse" loans were not enough; the Fed capped it off by doubling the money supply in 7 years; a surefire prescription for hyper-inflation. . . . So, which one of these policies was not deliberate? . . . The financial crisis that we now face was created by design. It is intended to destroy the labor movement, crush the middle class, quash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, reduce our foreign debt by 50 or 60%, force a restructuring of America’s debt, privatize all public assets and resources, and create a new regime of austerity measures which will divert more wealth to the banking and corporate establishments. . . . Domestically, that plan appears to involve the activation of the police state. . . . In the last few weeks the Bush administration has passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which allows the president to arrest and torture whomever he chooses without charging him with a crime. Also, unbeknownst to most Americans, Bush signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy, will allow the president to unilaterally declare martial law. By changing The Insurrection Act, Bush has essentially overturned the Posse Comitatus Act which bars the president from deploying troops with the United States. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (as it is called) also allows Bush to take control of the National Guard which has always been under the purview of the state governors. Bush now has absolute power over all armed troops within the country, a state of affairs which the constitution purposely tried to prevent. The administration’s dream of militarizing the country under the sole authority of the executive has now been achieved although the public still has no idea that a coup that has taken place. . . . So, how will this cadre of plutocrats coerce the other nations to continue to use the dollar while it plummets from its perch? . . . As long as oil is denominated in dollars, the central banks will be forced to stockpile American scrip regardless of its value. It's no different than holding a gun to someone's head. They will use our debt-plagued greenbacks or their cars and trucks will sputter, their tractors and factories will wheeze, and their economies will grind to a halt. It’s just that simple. . . . America cannot maintain its superpower status unless it continues to control the global economic system. That means the linkage between the dollar and oil must be preserved. The Bush troupe sees this as an existential issue upon which the future of America’s ruling class depends. By 2020, 60% of the world's oil will come from the Middle East. Bush will do everything in his power to control the resources of the Caspian Basin, thereby expanding US dollar-hegemony and paving the way for a new American century. . . . Read more!
Bush Assumes Dictatorial Powers!!! (SFGate.com, 17 October 2006) George W. Bush got what he wanted, ostensibly as a tool in his unfocused "war on terror": By signing into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Bush has made it legal for the C.I.A. to continue operating torture facilities in undisclosed, foreign countries, and for the writ of habeas corpus to be suspended for individuals who are designated "enemy combatants" against the U.S. (Designated by whom? That question remains unanswered.) The law also "establishes military tribunals that would allow some use of evidence obtained by coercion [that is, torture] . . . The provisions of Bush's new torture law mean that Americans have lost the key, constitutional right on which Anglo-American criminal law (and criminal-law procedures in true democracies in general) is founded; that's the basic right of an individual to know why he or she is being apprehended and detained. Now, technically, as in Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia, anyone labeled an "enemy combatant" - again, by whom; by Bush? - can be whisked away and never heard from again. That kind of authority, in the hands of corrupt or untruthful politicians, may or may not be an effective tool in some kind of "war on terror," but it certainly can be a useful tool when it comes to silencing their opponents. . . .
In an Orwellian pronouncement dutifully reported by Voice of America, the taxpayer-funded "news" service that acts as a mouthpiece for the administration, Bush said: "The United States does not torture....It is against our laws and it is against our values. By allowing the C.I.A. program to go forward, this bill is preserving a tool that has saved American lives." Bush's claim flies in the face of numerous reports of torture conducted by American officials at U.S. military prisons or secret locations overseas. (See Human Rights Watch)
Xinhua observes: "Three weeks before the midterm congressional elections, [Bush's] signing of the bill was believed to be a deliberate move aimed to shift public attention...from the scandals that could cost Republicans their control of Congress."
American Prison Camps Are on the Way (Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. October 9, 2006) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks. . . . Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants." . . . Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens. . . . The bill also strips habeas corpus rights from detained aliens who have been declared enemy combatants. Congress has the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus only in times of rebellion or invasion. The habeas-stripping provision in the new bill is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will likely say so when the issue comes before it. . . . Although more insidious, this law follows in the footsteps of other unnecessarily repressive legislation. In times of war and national crisis, the government has targeted immigrants and dissidents. . . . . . . In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the internment of Japanese and Japanese-American citizens in Korematsu v. United States. Justice Robert Jackson warned in his dissent that the ruling would "lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need." . . . That day has come with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It provides the basis for the President to round-up both aliens and U.S. citizens he determines have given material support to terrorists. Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of undesirables. . . . In his 1928 dissent in Olmstead v. United States, Justice Louis Brandeis cautioned, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Seventy-three years later, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, speaking for a zealous President, warned Americans "they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." . . . We can expect Bush to continue to exploit 9/11 to strip us of more of our liberties. Our constitutional right to dissent is in serious jeopardy. Benjamin Franklin's prescient warning should give us pause: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.". . . Read more!
United States Prepares To Drop 'Net of Freedom' Over America (Sorcha Faal, September 28, 2006) Preparations within America show their plan is to not only construct 1,800 Observation Towers along their border with Mexico, but also to being construction of a further 900 Observation Towers along their Northern border with Canada. . . . As history has always shown when totalitarian nations enter the final phases geared towards the total subjugation of their citizens, the United States Government is also instigating a series of draconian documentation procedures for Americans, to include new passport requirements for all of their citizens entering both Mexico and Canada, and a National ID card system . . . Towards all of these events, however, lies the seminal shift within the minds of the American people themselves that would allow such totalitarian measures to be enacted against them in the first place . . . A conclusion that can be rightly made of these American people today, and based upon the known facts, is that the success of the United States Government/Corporate Alliance to turn these human beings into nothing more than consuming machines is now complete. . . . From individuals of just a century ago, and who believed in their freedoms, liberties and a society based upon the common good, the Americans of today are nothing more today than 'individual consumers', and who have been reduced to slaves to their government/corporate interests who provide them a never ending variety of consumer goods these people not only do not need, but most insidiously are designed for no other purpose than to keep these people believing that they always need more. . . . Where the identity of human beings, in our ages past, had always been defined by the strength of a society, today a new monster has arisen in the World where these Western people, particularly the Americans, define their identity based solely upon their individual wants and desires, and which their government/corporate masters freely provide to them because if these people are content in having their personal identity defined in what they consume they care not for who rules them. . . . But unknown to these American people is that that which enables their Military Leaders to control them also makes them their Rulers greatest threat. For the price of unlimited consumerism, pandering to the individual against the need of the society as a whole, is the disintegration of that entire society, and which the American Empire is facing today, but cannot be fully accomplished prior to a Global War, and which unknown to these slaves of consumerism has been the ages old goal of their masters all along. . . . Read more!
Bob Woodward's new book attacks Bush's credibility (Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, September 30, 2006) The Bush administration has misled the American people about the level of violence in Iraq, where there is an attack by insurgent forces every 15 minutes, Bob Woodward, the investigative journalist, said yesterday. . . . In a new book, State of Denial, Woodward argues that the White House disregarded warnings from advisers in the autumn of 2003 that it needed thousands more troops to put down the insurgency. He says the administration continues to deny the gravity of the situation in Iraq because of Mr Bush's conviction that it was right to go to war. . . . "It's getting to the point now where there are 800-900 attacks a week. That's more than a hundred a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," . . . Woodward argues the administration routinely glosses over such news from the ground, as well as intelligence predicting further deterioration in Iraq, because they collide with Mr Bush's convictions. . . . The White House failed to act on a memo from Robert Blackwill, then the senior Iraqi adviser on the National Security Council, calling for 40,000 additional troops in Iraq, he writes. It is equally resistant to intelligence forecasts of worsening violence in the year ahead. . . . "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better'," Woodward told CBS.
ALSO SEE: Bush 'concealing Iraq violence' (Justin Webb, BBC News, September 29, 2006) In a preview interview he also revealed that former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has become a frequent adviser to President Bush. . . . one eye-catching and politically damaging claim that the true extent of the violence in Iraq is being hidden. . . . "Now, there's public and then there's private, but what do they do with the private - they stamp it secret. No-one's supposed to know," Mr Woodward said. . . . He added that the insurgents knew how effective they were - but the US public did not. . . . He's back. In fact Henry Kissinger is almost like a member of the family. If he is in town he can call up and if the President's free he will see him," Mr Woodward said. . . . He added that Mr Kissinger's message was that victory was the only meaningful exit strategy. . . . "So fascinating. Kissinger's fighting the Vietnam war again," Mr Woodward added. . . . Read more!
Battle Cry For Billionaires, Broadcasters, and Bloggers (Brent Budowsky, BuzzFlash, September 13, 2006) For the first time in the history of our Republic, the coming election in November is nothing less than a national referendum, in which the American people will be voting whether to pursue, or prevent, the next dark and unalterable road to tragic and unwise war. . . . For the first time in the history of our Republic, a Congressional election is nothing less than a national referendum on whether America will, or will not, be governed as a vibrant two party nation, with three effective branches of government, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. . . . We are up against mighty forces of power from a media machine that has been built for thirty years while our side has given close to zero. Not only the unprecedented apparatus of partisan Government media power. Not only supplicant television so extreme that even a publicly traded network, using publicly owned airwaves, promotes a propaganda film weeks before a historic election. . . . This is crystal clear: the President and his Administration have a war fever mentality that is unprecedented in American history. . . . Far too much attention is being given to the tactics, polemics, strategies and maneuverings of the election, and far too little attention to the enormous and potentially catastrophic stakes for America and the world, if we lose it. . . . One of the most ominous and alarming statistics in the history of the American Democracy is that close to half our people actually believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11. This is ghoulish proof of the power of the lie to overwhelm the truth. Stunning proof of the power of the right wing media machine and the total failure of every form of the media to inform the public. . . . If the Republicans maintain control of both Houses of Congress, there will be more winds of war, more distortions of intelligence, more creations of fear, more push for new war, and either pre-emptive military attack in advance of the inevitable approval of the Republican Congress, or a force fed resolution for war, given inevitable approval by the Republican Congress. . . . Understand: Karl Rove is the single most brilliant political strategist and operative of our generation, from either party, by far. I have seen him operate in Texas and nationally for well over a decade, and we should view him as a mortal political adversary with a vision of permanent one-party domination and a willingness to do ANYTHING to achieve it. But do not underestimate his brilliance or power. . . . What Rove is whispering in Republican ears today, is this: distance from the President as much as necessary before the election, so long as you are with him, after the election. . . . Therefore, the rally cry: it is time to move beyond our grievances to a new era of empowerment and to an unprecedented mobilization of progressives, moderates, independents to fight for and win a true revitalization of democracy in America, and a true revival of a two party system, with three branches of government. . . . Make no mistake about the importance of the Disney fight. They won a minor victory, reminding the Nation of Monica Lewinsky and repeating their attack points through a propaganda enterprise from a television network. It is profoundly dangerous, radical and ominous that a major network could so aggressively corrupt a moment as enormous as the five year commemoration of 9-11, with a propaganda film that used falsehoods to promote the attack talking points of a partisan party, literally quoting oppo research papers, at times verbatim. . . . The election that will determine war and peace, and the heart and soul of American democracy, is fast approaching. . . . An uprecedented barrage of attacks and smears, financed by the forces of the one party state and their Armada of media power, is on the brink of being launched. . . . The stakes are enormous and indescribable. The way to win is now clear. The mission is now certain. The strategy for victory is right before us, proven by our ad hoc army of media and communication that won the battle of ideas in the discredited docu-smear by Disney. . . . What I urge, propose, implore and call for is an urgent summit of the financial leaders of the Democratic and progressive community, supported by President Clinton, President Carter, and Vice-President Gore to finance an emergency infusion of $25 million into Air America, the progressive blogoshere, and African American, Hispanic and Labor groups to combine a massive communications assault with a massive voting power assault for the closing weeks of this historic campaign. . . . It is time to man the barricades, with a sense of urgency and passion, with an immediacy and power equal to the magnitude of the forces we are up against, the unprecedented attack that is hours from beginning, and the extreme consequences of two more years of one party rule. . . . It is time to cut the cards, cut the crap, cut through the niceties, and play to win. . . . To the wealthiest 500 Democrats in the land: we the people of the United States are issuing a rally cry for you to join us, and any one of you has the power, by standing with us, to change the course of history. . . . Their machine is thirty years in the making, with countless billions behind them. Ours is new, almost unsupported by the money on our side but armed for battle, empowered by our numbers, driven by our convictions, suited up for combat, strengthened by our idealism, lifted by our passion, and ready to win. . . . Join us, and the Armada of one party rule will be defeated by the real voices, of the real America. . . . Brent Budowsky . . . Read more!
Air Force wants to test weapons on U.S. demonstrators (CNN.com, September 12, 2006) Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday. . . . The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne. . . . "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne." (Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press." . . . The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons . . . Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices. . . . Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings. . . . He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft. . . . "We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts," said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to "take some appetite suppressant pills." He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices. . . . The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent. . . . Read more!
U.S.
News Archives
U.S.
News [Home]
