Thursday, January 08, 2009

Martial Law, the Financial Bailout, and War

Prof. Peter Dale Scott
Global Research
January 8, 2009
Paulson’s Financial Bailout
It is becoming clear that the bailout measures of late 2008 may have consequences at least as grave for an open society as the response to 9/11 in 2001. Many members of Congress felt coerced into voting against their inclinations, and the normal procedures for orderly consideration of a bill were dispensed with.


  It is clear that there has been a sustained move in the direction of martial law preparations, a trend that has been as continuous as it has been unheralded.

The excuse for bypassing normal legislative procedures was the existence of an emergency. But one of the most reprehensible features of the legislation, that it allowed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to permit bailed-out institutions to use public money for exorbitant salaries and bonuses, was inserted by Paulson after the immediate crisis had passed.
According to Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vermont) the bailout bill originally called for a cap on executive salaries, but Paulson changed the requirement at the last minute. Welch and other members of Congress were enraged by “news that banks getting taxpayer-funded bailouts are still paying exorbitant salaries, bonuses, and other benefits.”1 In addition, as AP reported in October, “Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. questioned allowing banks that accept bailout bucks to continue paying dividends on their common stock. `There are far better uses of taxpayer dollars than continuing dividend payments to shareholders,’ he said.”2
Even more reprehensible is the fact that since the bailouts, Paulson and the Treasury Department have refused to provide details of the Troubled Assets Relief Program spending of hundreds of billions of dollars, while the New York Federal Reserve has refused to provide information about its own bail-out (using government-backed loans) that amounts to trillions. This lack of transparency has been challenged by Fox TV in a FOIA suit against the Treasury Department, and a suit by Bloomberg News against the Fed.3
The financial bailout legislation of September 2008 was only passed after members of both Congressional houses were warned that failure to act would threaten civil unrest and the imposition of martial law.
U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., both said U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson brought up a worst-case scenario as he pushed for the Wall Street bailout in September. Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, said that might even require a declaration of martial law, the two noted.4
Here are the original remarks by Senator Inhofe:
Speaking on Tulsa Oklahoma’s 1170 KFAQ, when asked who was behind threats of martial law and civil unrest if the bailout bill failed, Senator James Inhofe named Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as the source. “Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn’t do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest….who was feeding you guys this stuff?,” asked host Pat Campbell. “That’s Henry Paulson,” responded Inhofe, “We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think – a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been the middle … what was it – the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call – and I guess there’s no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said – he painted this picture you just described. He said, ‘This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced.’”5
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA 27th District) reported the same threat on the Congressional floor (Rep. Sherman later downplayed his remarks slightly on the Alex Jones show):
“The only way they can pass this bill is by creating a panic atmosphere…. Many of us were told that the sky would fall…. A few of us were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That’s what I call fear-mongering, unjustified, proven wrong.”6
So it is clear that threats of martial law were used to get this reprehensible bailout legislation passed. It also seems clear that Congress was told of a threat of martial law, not itself threatened. It is still entirely appropriate to link such talk to the Army’s rapid moves to redefine its role as one of controlling the American people, not just protecting them. In a constitutional polity based on balance of powers, we see the emergence of a radical new military power that is as yet completely unbalanced.
The Army’s New Role in 2001: Not Protecting American Society, but Controlling It
This new role for the Army is not wholly unprecedented. The U.S. military had been training troops and police in "civil disturbance planning" for the last three decades. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, or "Operation Garden Plot," was developed in 1968 in response to the major protests and disturbances of the 1960s.
But on January 19, 2001, on the last day of the Clinton administration, the U.S. Army promulgated a new and permanent Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program. It encapsulated its difference from the preceding, externally-oriented Army Survival, Recovery, and Reconstitution System (ASRRS) as follows:
a. In 1985, the Chief of Staff of the Army established the Army Survival, Recovery, and Reconstitution System (ASRRS) to ensure the continuity of essential Army missions and functions.
ASRRS doctrine was focused primarily on a response to the worst case 1980’s threat of a massive nuclear laydown on CONUS as a result of a confrontation with the Soviet Union.
b. The end of the Cold War and the breakup of the former Soviet Union significantly reduced the probability of a major nuclear attack on CONUS but the probability of other threats has increased. Army organizations must be prepared for any contingency with a potential for interruption of normal operations.
To emphasize that Army continuity of operations planning is now focused on the full all-hazards threat spectrum, the name "ASRRS" has been replaced by the more generic title “Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program.”7
This document embodied the secret Continuity of Operations (COG) planning conducted secretly by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others through the 1980s and 1990s.8 This planning was initially for continuity measures in the event of a nuclear attack, but soon called for suspension of the Constitution, not just “after a nuclear war” but for any “national security emergency.” This was defined in Reagan’s Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988 as “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” The effect was to impose on domestic civil society the extreme measures once planned for a response to a nuclear attack from abroad.9
In like fashion ARR 500-3 Regulation clarified that it was a plan for “the execution of mission-essential functions without unacceptable interruption during a national security or domestic emergency.”
Donald Rumsfeld, who as a private citizen had helped author the COG planning, promptly signed and implemented the revised ARR 500-3. Eight months later, on 9/11, Cheney and Rumsfeld implemented COG, a significant event of which we still know next to nothing. What we do know is that plans began almost immediately – as foreseen by COG planning the 1980s — to implement warrantless surveillance and detention of large numbers of civilians, and that in January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets.10
Then in April 2002, Defense officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-NORTHCOM) for the continental United States.11 In short, what were being implemented were the most prominent features of the COG planning which Oliver North had worked on in the 1980s.
Deep Events and Changes of Party in the White House
Like so many other significant steps since World War Two towards a military-industrial state, the Army’s Regulation 500-3 surfaced in the last days of a departing administration (in this case the very last day). It is worth noticing that, ever since the 1950s, dubious events–of the unpublic variety I have called deep events–have marked the last months before a change of party in the White House. These deep events have tended to a) constrain incoming presidents, if the incomer is a Democrat, or alternatively b) to pave the way for the incomer, if he is a Republican.
Consider, in the first category, the following (when a Republican was succeeded by a Democrat):
* In December 1960 the CIA secured approval for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and escalated events in Laos into a crisis for which the Joint Chiefs proposed sending 60,000 troops. These events profoundly affected President Kennedy’s posture towards Cuba and Indochina.
* In 1976 CIA Director George H.W. Bush installed an outside Team B intelligence unit to enlarge drastically estimates of the Soviet threat to the United States, eventually frustrating and reversing presidential candidate Jimmy Carter’s campaign pledge to cut the U.S. defense budget.12
Equally important were events in the second category (when a Democrat was succeeded by a Republican):
* In late 1968 Kissinger, while advising the Johnson administration, gave secret information to the Nixon campaign that helped Nixon to obstruct the peace agreement in Vietnam that was about to be negotiated at the peace talks then taking place in Paris. (According to Seymour Hersh,“The Nixon campaign, alerted by Kissinger to the impending success of the peace talks, was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government” in Saigon. making it clear that a Nixon presidency would offer a better deal. This was a major factor in securing the defeat of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey.13 Kissinger was not the kind of person to have betrayed his president on his own personal initiative. At the time Nixon’s campaign manager, John Mitchell (one of the very few in on the secret), told Hersh that “I thought Henry [Kissinger] was doing it because Nelson [Rockefeller] wanted him to. Nelson asked Henry to help and he did.”14
* In 1980 the so-called October Surprise, with the help of people inside CIA, helped ensure that the Americans held hostage in Iran would not be returned before the inauguration of Reagan. This was a major factor in securing the defeat of incumbent Jimmy Carter.15 Once again, the influence of the Rockefellers can be discerned. A CIA officer later reported hearing Joseph V. Reed, an aide to David Rockefeller, comment in 1981 to William Casey, the newly installed CIA Director, about their joint success in disrupting Carter’s plans to bring home the hostages.16
Both the financial bailout, extorted from Congress and the escalated preparations for martial law can be seen as transitional events of the first category. Whatever the explanations for their timing, they will constrain Obama’s freedom to make his own policies. I fear moreover they may have the consequence of easing this country into unforeseen escalations of the Afghan war.
The Intensive Quiet Preparations for Martial Law
Let us deal first with the preparations for martial law. On September 30, 2008, the Army Times announced the redeployment of an active Brigade Army Team from Iraq to America, in a new mission that “may become a permanent part of the active Army”:
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks. . . . After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one. . . .They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.17
This announcement followed by two weeks the talk of civil unrest and martial law that was used to panic the Congress into passing Paulson’s bailout legislation. Not only that, the two unprecedented events mirror each other: the bailout debate anticipated civil unrest and martial law, while the announced positioning of an active Brigade Combat Team on U.S. soil anticipated civil unrest (such as might result from the bailout legislation).
Then on December 17, 2008, US Northern Command chief General Renuart announced that “the US military plans to mobilize thousands of troops to protect Washington against potential terrorist attack during the inauguration of president-elect Barack Obama.”18
The US Army War College has also raised the possibility of the U.S. Army being used to control civil unrest, according to the Phoenix Business Journal:
A new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” said the War College report.
The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the U.S.19
It is clear that there has been a sustained move in the direction of martial law preparations, a trend that has been as continuous as it has been unheralded. Senator Leahy was thus right to draw our attention to it back on September 29, 2006, in his objections to the final form of the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president increased power to call up the National Guard for law enforcement:
It . . . should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations.20
This quiet agglomeration of military power has not “just growed,” like Topsy, through inadvertence. It shows sustained intention, even if no one has made a public case for it.
How the Bush Administration Protected Predatory Lending and Let the Financial Crisis Grow
Let us now consider the financial crisis and the panic bailout. No one should think that the crisis was unforeseen. Back in February Eliot Spitzer, in one of his last acts as governor of New York, warned about the impending crisis created by predatory lending, and reveled that the Bush Administration was blocking state efforts to deal with it. His extraordinary warning, in the Washington Post, is worth quoting at some length:
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. …
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers. . . . Several state legislatures, including New York’s, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices. . . .Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal [Treasury] agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.21
Eliot Spitzer submitted his Op Ed to the Washington Post on February 13. If it had an impact, it was not the one Spitzer had hoped for. On March 10 the New York Times broke the story of Spitzer’s encounter with a prostitute. According to a later Times story, “on Feb. 13 [the day Spitzer’s Op Ed went up on the Washington Post website] federal agents staked out his hotel in Washington.”22
It is remarkable that the Mainstream Media found Spitzer’s private life to be big news, but not his charges that Paulson’s Treasury was prolonging the financial crisis, or the relation of these charges to Spitzer’s exposure. As a weblog commented,
The US news media failed to draw the obvious connection between the bizarre federal law enforcement investigation and leak campaign about the private life of New York Governor Spitzer and Spitzer’s all out attack on the Bush administration for its collusion with predatory lenders.
While the international credit system grinds to a halt because of a superabundance of bad mortgage loans made in the US, the news media failed to cover the details of Spitzer’s public charges against the White House.
Yet when salacious details were leaked about alleged details of Spitzer’s private life, they took that information and made it the front page news for days.23
After Spitzer’s Op Ed was published, according to Greg Palast, the Federal Reserve, “for the first time in its history, loaned a selected coterie of banks one-fifth of a trillion dollars to guarantee these banks’ mortgage-backed junk bonds. The deluge of public loot was an eye-popping windfall to the very banking predators who have brought two million families to the brink of foreclosure.”24
What are we to make of Spitzer’s charge that the Bush administration interfered to preempt state laws against predatory lending, and of the fact that the mainstream media did not report that? A petty motive for the OCC’s behavior in 2003 might have been to allow the housing bubble to continue through 2003 and 2004, thus facilitating Bush’s re-election. But the persistence of Treasury obstruction thereafter, despite the unanimous opposition of all fifty states, and the continuing silence of the media about this disagreement, suggest that some broader policy intention may have been at stake.
One is struck by the similarities with the Savings and Loan scandal which was allowed to continue through the Reagan 1980s, long after it became apparent that deliberate bankruptcy was being used by unscrupulous profiteers to amass illegal fortunes at what was ultimately public expense.25
In the same way, the long drawn-out housing bubble of the current Bush decade, and particularly the derivative bubble that was floated upon it, allowed the Bush administration to help offset the trillion-dollar-plus cost of its Iraq misadventure,26 by creating spurious securities that sold for hundreds of billions, not just in the United States, but through the rest of the world.
In the long run, this was not a sustainable source of wealth for America’s financial class, which is now suffering like everyone else from the consequent recession. But in the short run, the financial crisis and bailout made it possible for Bush to wage a costly war without experiencing the kind of debilitating inflation that was brought on by America’s Vietnam War.

The trillion dollar meltdown,27 in other words, can be rationalized as having helped finance the Iraq War. When we turn to the martial law preparations, however, they are being made in anticipation of civil unrest in the future. Why such intense preparation for this?
The obvious answer of course is memory of the rioting that occurred in San Francisco and elsewhere during the great depression of the 1930s. Indeed that thought may be uppermost among those who recently arranged for the redeployment of a Brigade Combat Team from Iraq to America. But the planning for martial law in America dates back almost three decades, from the days when Reagan appointed Rumsfeld, Cheney and others to plan secretly for what was misleadingly called Continuity [i.e., Change] of Government. Concern about the 2008 recession cannot have been on their minds then, or on those who introduced the Army’s “Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program” on January 19, 2001. Instead the “full all-hazards threat spectrum” envisaged in that document was clearly ancillary to the doctrine of “full-spectrum dominance” that had been articulated in the Joint Chiefs of Staff blueprint, Joint Vision 2020, endorsed eight months earlier on May 30, 2000.28
The interest of Cheney and Rumsfeld in COG planning, including planning for martial law, also envisaged full spectrum dominance. This is made clear by their simultaneous engagement in the 1990s in the public Project for the New American Century (PNAC). PNAC’s goals were stated very explicitly in their document Rebuilding America’s Defenses: to increase defense spending so as to establish America’s military presence throughout the world as an unchallengeable power. This would entail permanent U.S. forces in central as well as east Asia, even after the disappearance[jam1] of Saddam Hussein.29
In short PNAC’s program was a blueprint for permanent overseas American empire, a project they recognized would not be easily accepted by an American democracy. Their call frankly acknowledged that it would be difficult to gain support for their projected increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.” “The process of transformation,” the document admitted, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”30
There is of course every reason to hope that the disastrous era of Rumsfeld and Cheney is about to end, with the election of Barack Obama. Obama has made it clear that he will pursue a foreign policy dedicated to diplomacy and multilateralism. In this spirit he has declared his willingness to talk to Iran without preconditions.
But Obama’s stated reason for disengagement from Iraq – “The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan”31 – is very ominous. Few serious students of the Afghan scene believe that America can “finish the fight in Afghanistan,” any more successfully than could the Russians or British before them. The U.S. position there is visibly deteriorating, while the U.S. strategy of cross-border attacks is having the effect of destabilizing Pakistan as well. The U.S.-backed Karzai regime has so little control over the countryside that Kabul itself is now coming under rocket attack. Experts on the scene agree that any effort to “finish” will be a long-term proposition requiring at a minimum a vastly escalated commitment of U.S. troops.32
One cannot predict the future, but one can examine the past. For thirty years I have been writing about the persistence in America of a war mentality that, time after time, trumps reasonable policies of negotiation, and leads us further into armed conflict. This dominant mindset is not restricted to any single agency or cabal, but is rather the likely outcome of on-going tensions between hawks and doves in the internal politics of Washington.
If a container of rocks and gravel is shaken vigorously, the probability is that the gravel will gravitate towards the bottom, leaving the largest rocks at the top. There is an analogous probability that, in an on-going debate over engaging or withdrawing from a difficult military contest, the forces for engagement will come out on top, regardless of circumstances. Available military power tends to be used, and one of the most remarkable features of history since 1945 is that this tendency has not so far repeated itself with atomic weapons.
Let me explain this metaphor in more concrete detail. Progressive societies (in this era usually democracies) tend to expand their presence beyond their geographic boundaries. This expanded presence calls for new institutions, usually (like the CIA) free from democratic accountability. This accretion of unaccountable power, in what I have elsewhere called the deep state, disrupts the public state’s system of checks and balances which is the underpinning of sane, deliberative policy.
We might expect of progressive democracies that they would evolve towards more and more rational foreign policies. But because of the dialectic just described, what we see is the exact opposite – evolution towards foolish and sometimes disastrous engagements. When Britain became more democratic in the late 19th Century, it also initiated the Boer War, a war very suited to the private imperial needs of Cecil Rhodes, but irrelevant if not deleterious to the interests of the British people.33 Hitler’s dreams of a Third Reich, entailing a doomed repeat of Napoleon’s venture into the heart of Russia, suited the needs of the German industrialists who had financed the Nazis; but from the outset sane heads of the German military staff could foresee the coming disaster.
For over a half century now, beginning with Vietnam, unaccountable forces have been maneuvering America into unsustainable adventures on the Asian mainland. We now know that Kennedy did not intend ever to commit U.S. combat troops to Vietnam.34 But the fatal planning to expand the Vietnam War north of the 17th parallel was authorized in the last week of his aborted presidency, probably without his being aware.35 When elected, Jimmy Carter was determined to reduce the size and frequency of CIA covert operations.36 Yet his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, initiated maneuvers in Afghanistan that led to the largest CIA covert operation (and in my view, one of the most deleterious) of all time.37
Pages: 1 2

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Gaza diary: Are we not human?

By Mohammed Ali in Gaza City

Many Gazans feel hopeless in the face of the Israeli bombardment [GALLO/GETTY]

"As the death toll from Israel's war on Gaza continues to climb, Mohammed Ali, an advocacy and media researcher for Oxfam who lives in Gaza City, will be keeping a diary of his feelings and experiences.

The air, the sea and the earth in Gaza City are now occupied by the Israeli military. They occupy Gazans' minds, nerves and ears too.

In a bid to stop my children twitching, jerking, trembling and waking at every sound of an attack during their few hours of sleep and their many waking hours, I put cotton wool in their ears - it has not worked.

I wonder what damage is being done to my children's tiny hearts. Theirs are not as big as mine, they can cope less with the stress that is being put on them.

We ran out of fuel for our generator, which meant that we were confined to a small room filled with eleven people, with little light for three days.

We have not had water either; our well can only pump water if it has electricity which most of the Gaza Strip has been denied since this nightmare started.
Unlike many other families, we were fortunate yesterday to find 20 litres of benzene to power our generator. No fuel has come in since the onset of this attack on Gaza so we had to pay seven times its usual price.
We have one day's worth of food left and the nappies I bought two weeks ago are nearly gone. They are not good quality as little has been able to enter this strip of land since the blockade was imposed on us 18 months ago. Bad quality nappies mean unpleasant leakages, and for the last few days the little ones have had to be bathed in freezing cold water.
My sister who was with us the last time I wrote decided to return home in spite of our protests. She feared that with food reserves running out we might have to eat one meal a day rather than the two we have been having of late. At home she has a little food left, enough to keep her and her family going for a while longer.
We are now 11, huddled together in my parents' dining room. My brother and I and our families moved there, thinking that the first floor may be the safest option.

There is a saying in Arabic which says "death in a group is a mercy". I guess if we die together maybe, just maybe, we will feel less of the pain than in doing so alone.
I have had 8 hours sleep since the beginning of this conflict; we can hear attacks almost every minute.
I think to myself, if one of us is injured or needs medical attention what will happen? Ambulances are finding it difficult to reach civilians, roads are blocked by rubble, Israeli forces in their path - you could bleed to death.

Even if they did get to us, maybe we would be bombed on our way to the hospital. If we did reach the hospital there might not be enough room to treat us - there is little medication or equipment or any electricity to fuel the life-saving equipment. We would not even be able to get out of Gaza for the life-saving treatment we needed.
Hospitals are now running on back-up generators making life even more difficult for the doctors who are trying to cope with the influx of the injured. If fuel runs out for the generators, those on life-saving equipment will perish.
I heard a woman calling into a radio station today - ambulance services could not reach her and I guess she thought the radio station might be able to do something. She was wailing down the phone "our home is on fire, my children are dying, help me". I do not know what happened to her and her children - I do not want to imagine.

I spend much of my time thinking that this could be the last hour of my existence.

As I try to fall asleep, I hear on the radio the numbers of people who have died rising by the hour. I wonder if tomorrow morning, I will be part of that body count, part of the next breaking news.

I will be just another number to all those watching the death and destruction in Gaza or maybe the fact that I work for Oxfam will mean that I will be a name and not just a number. I might be talked about for a minute and moments later forgotten, like all those other people who have had their lives taken away from them.
I am not afraid of dying - I know that one day we all must die. But not like this, not sitting idly in my home with my children in my arms waiting for our lives to be taken away. I am disgusted by this injustice.
What is the international community waiting for - to see even more dismembered people and families erased before they act? Time is ticking by and the numbers of dead and injured are increasing. What are they waiting for?
What is happening is against humanity, are we not human?"
Comment by EA: 
Just wait until the US and Israhell turn their attention outward, and inward. Outward in the Middle East and Inward in the US. The US will turn into Gaza/Palestine. The enemy of the people their will be the US Government, just as in Israel. It is the same bloodline as the US. That is the reason their has always been the support from the US, and that their skin color is not dark.

Soon enough, the US will go down the route of this Genocide as well. It as well will be Human Right Violations, as the In habitats of the US  incorporate; represent, DNA from all Root Races on Earth.

The the New World Order will takes its place, where it ought not, and underestimate their true standing in the Universe.Their are many standing armies of people World Wide that are amassed ready for battle against them. There are others whom are seeking Metaphysical answers to such problems still. Still yet, some are awaiting some type of positive change that diverts around destruction of ourselves.

Much still are there imaginations and theories of what reality is, and ever more so of not knowing anything but questions.

Or maybe it IS ALL a distraction, a diversion, to keep the veil from falling. Creating shit that destroies indefinitely so that the real issue is never seen.

What is the real issue what something you never thought of it being. Something profoundly simple, but of great weight in consequence?

What if all was put before us for a reason that was not known by us; or many. This reason would not be understood unless the entire correlating circumstances and knowledge could be appended to the original thought. First someone has to know the reason. As of yet I have yet to meet any.

If the continual DUALITY continues this time line will no longer function as it should. Humanity become lost in Duality not long after it was presented.

And this Duality serves a purpose. Being lost and confused is imperative to induce if one is to conquer civilization. On the Earth, or else where in the Universe. Society is not the way it is, because what it has become has been entirely the natural path. Our Homeostasis; or characteristics thereof, has not followed a Natural Path, one of the reason so many people are starting to go back to the Earth. Great Grand Mother is calling us back on a Collective Field. This is one of the many reasons why the Elite have decimated Palestine so, the region is strong, and it has to be broken from their standpoint. That has always been the MO of the Elite that created Israel as the FRONT.

Or in this case back.

But, you see, things are getting very overt now. Most of the so called Conspiracy Theories have turned to Historical Fact, as history will hopefully bear out, if it is not again scrubbed before being let out again to the masses.

They are acting mad. They have the ability. The resources just gained by stealing the wealth of the US.

Thinking they have gone away, or are going to stop, go to jail, etc.

You are very mistaken. They ARE NOT GOING OUT WITHOUT A FIGHT.

Many on both sides feel this way. Thankfully as things continue to Even Horizon, the infighting within them will increase as well. "They will not know the way out".

And that hopefully will be their end. Many should do the right thing and Kill themselves.

Humanity just wants and needs you people gone. OVER WITH!

Its over. No more. We have had enough. You will never defeat us.

Humanity. Our ideas, thoughts, spirit, and force. Our perseverance. Our long suffering.

Our Modesty.

You will mock, but we have done all these things, otherwise you would not be breathing the air your lungs are as of now. You would have been hunted, tracked, and identified.

In your work areas, churches, schools, classrooms, banks.

I mean, just think, maybe your chauffeur?

You treat others like a shofer.

Watch out, your turning into a loafer.

We will one day meet on the battle field as well.

That is one of Humanities common Destinies.

Latest Deaths: Gazans 600, Israelis 5 (4 from "friendly" fire)

No, this is not the latest score of some football match, and the higher numbers do not mean that one side is doing better than the other!
The title of this article is designed to emphasize how one sided the Gaza conflict is. We can not be absolutely sure about the Gazan deaths, but the figure of 600 does not sound too far off the mark. However, we can be sure that the Israeli figures are 100% correct. This excludes the countless injuries, which are probably equally lopsided.
Of the 5 Israeli's that have been killed, at least 3 (and almost certainly 4) were the result of "friendly fire". This means (as far as we can tell) that the killing ratio is actually 600 to 1 (so far).
I'm obviously not suggesting that this should be more, I would rather see zero casualties on both sides, but it gives a very clear picture of how "disproportionate" this battle is.
Some have called this attack a "Palestinian Holocaust", and in many ways it is. The Gaza Strip is like a huge prison camp and the people are not allowed to leave. They have not received sufficient food or water, or medical assistance and the seriously injured are faced with a slow death. Doesn't this sound familiar?
Of all the people on this planet, you would think the Israeli's know better than anyone else what it is like to be imprisoned, starved and killed. It seems not?
Perhaps Israel feels that the endless reminders of "their" holocaust and the numerous memorials all over the world are not enough, and they need to provide us with a practical demonstration of how it was? Could it be they really don't see how outrageous this is, or is it, as some have suggested, a simple case of not giving a damn?
And as the killing continues, the rest of the world sits on its hands and pretends to be concerned.
Of course, when Israel has had its fill and feels that the mission has been "Accomplished", we will start to
hear talk about a ceasefire and French President Sarkozy (and probably Tony Blair) will appear on the scene to take the glory for ending a conflict that has already finished!

The United States and most of Europe are powerless to intervene, because they know that Israel will do whatever it wishes without any repercussion, and a price will have to be paid by anyone who even considers it.
Do you think I exaggerate? Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on the occupied territories, has condemned Israel for its actions in Gaza. As a result he was held for 20 hours and then denied entry to Israel (and he is Jewish!).
David Icke has, in his own special way, explained his views on the Israeli situation with his newsletter: "Time To Tell The Truth About Israel ..."
Unfortunately, because the mainstream media and others supportive of Israel have told us that it is bad, wrong and very naughty to be critical of Israel, most of the public immediately brand those issuing the criticism as "anti-Semitic" or "Jew Haters".
Sadly, because this "brainwashing" is so effective, very few actually read the articles in question to find out for themselves whether it is fair criticism, or really anti-Semitic comments. It is almost as if some harm will fall upon a person if he/she even dares to glance at such information and it is the same kind of fear created by the KGB in Soviet times.
If people were to find the courage to read some of the articles available on the internet, they would discover that most of them are not attacking Jews, but "Zionists" (which are not always Jewish). This is an important difference, but something that many try to make a single issue. By making people believe that an attack on a Zionist is the same as attacking a Jew, the real culprits obtain a very powerful shield. It is the Zionist leaders of Israel who are to blame for the excessive force being used in the Gaza, not Jews in general.
We have seen many in Israel protest against the attack on Gaza, which is solid proof that many Israeli's do not automatically support their government and therefore do not always think the same. Are these people "anti-Semitic" or "self-haters"? Of course not! They are people who want to live in peace, just like any other normal person.
I do not support the tactics used by Hamas, but these are desperate measures by desperate people. If the world "encouraged" the Israeli leaders to discuss a possible solution with Palestine, instead of demanding one at the end of a gun, maybe a compromise can be reached. Unfortunately, we all know how Israel hate that word, but sooner or later that is what will be required, if they truly want peace.
The only other solution is to kill every last Palestinian man, woman and child, and they seem to have made a good start on that option.
I was going to post a link to some photos showing the children who have been killed or badly injured in the attack on Gaza, but what's the point? Those of you who believe them will be horrified by the images, and those that don't will assume its more "Arab" theatricals and they are only pretending to be dead to get our sympathy. Maybe all the destroyed buildings seen in the photos are also an illusion and Hamas purposely turned them into rubble because it was good press? Or maybe something really terrible is happening there and some of us are no longer human enough to care anymore?
Ian Brockwell writes straight talking, honest stories that engage readers. Contact Ian through NewsBlaze or his News Page.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Obama's statement on the Crisis in Palestine

It's no small wonder that President Elect Barack Obama is keeping silent on the current round of wanton slaughter and destruction in Palestine. After all He had already made his position crystal clear when he addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, otherwise known as "The Israeli Lobby", on June 4th of last year. There had been doubts amongst a portion of Jewish voters as to his fealty to Israel but in his opening statement he put those fears to rest.
"I want you to know that today I'll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever."
The speech, reportedly written by James Steinberg, his newly nominated deputy secretary of state and former deputy national security advisor under Bill Clinton, was the Nadir of Obama's semblance of integrity. His sycophantic, one sided admiration for Israel was as intense as his vilification of anyone who dared to criticize its policies. His choice of words to express the unity between the U.S. and Israel was probably more revealing that he would have liked.
"Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."
If by "shared values" he means that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been one of pillage, murder and chaos, then he would be right. If by "shared interests" he means the theft of Arab land, he would also be correct. The same foreign policy pursued by the Bush-Cheney gang, against which he had been railing during his campaign, is acceptable when it comes to protecting a nuclear armed apartheid regime such as Israel. The obligatory nod to a negotiated Peace was briefly addressed in terms that would not have anyone shifting in their seats...
"As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency." SNIP "Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people."
How many Presidents have we heard this from over the last 20 years ? What "quest for Peace" with its neighbours? Every dog and pony show organized by successive occupants of the Whitehouse has been only to give the appearance of progress and has always proposed an impossible choice for the Palestinians in which they would be the ones to give and the Israelis would be the ones to take. Camp David Redux. He goes on to recount a visit to Israel on which he took a joyride on an IDF helicopter, paid for by U.S. taxpayer "aid" he consistently voted for..
"I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children."
There was no visit to the very unbeautiful, poverty ridden lunar landscape that is Gaza. There was no mention of the thousands of Palestinian families who had lost sons, daughters, mothers and fathers to F-16's, Apache attack helicopters, Merkava tanks, white phosphorous bombs, nerve gas and M-16 bullets all delivered through his complicity and his commitment to Israel's "security". There was no mention of the thousands of Palestinian homes bulldozed to rubble, the thousands of families these criminal acts made homeless. There needs to be recognition of the real suffering on both sides of the equation. Israeli families are suffering as a consequence of the actions of their own government and those of the U.S. which have given rise to the actions of a desperate Palestinian people who have been driven to the end of hopelessness and despair. An increasing number of Israeli citizens are beginning to realise this and opposition to the occupation and the enslavement is growing. There are increasing numbers of these same Israeli troops that Obama talked to that are refusing to take part in the destruction of an entire people.
"Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security - to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements - as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis."
Ah, "security" again. Does Obama not realize that these same "settlements" represent an abrogation of International Law? Does "security" outweigh this same framework of International Law to which his own country and Israel are signatories? Is he going to continue to add to the very long list of U.S. vetoed resolutions against Israel? The only U.N. resolution that he wants to see enforced is 1701 under which the "security council calls for an end to hostilities between Hizbollah and Israel", never mind that Israel instigated this massacre to try and bring Hizbollah to heel only to have to drag their sorry behinds back home. The precipitating event was"by way of deception", the motto of Mossad, and was quickly sanitized from any media reporting.
Obama will continue the vilification of and bellicosity towards Iran and Syria which he insists pose a grave danger to a country that possesses hundreds of Nuclear weapons. The following quotes illustrate the continuity we can expect with regard to U.S. policy in the Middle East.
"The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don't end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat." No matter that the "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no trace of nuclear material in Syria's Al-Kibar so far, but it would continue sampling in this area to analyze, said Mohammed ElBaradei, IAEA director general, in Vienna Monday" Source. The IAEA has not come back to date with any confirmation.
"There is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran." SNIP "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."
It does not seem to register with Obama that the original translation from Farsi to English had been later corrected to "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world". The original New York Times translation was disingenuous at the very least. With regard to Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, the IAEA has yet to find a single scrap of evidence to support this claim. They didn't come up with any proof with regard to Iraq either but that didn't stop the invasion as the U.S. and it's allies demanded Saddam Hussein prove a negative. His upcoming ultimatum to Iran to either stop it's unproven nuclear weapons program or face the consequences fails to take in to account the strong military and trade agreements between Iran, China and Russia. Would the future President be willing to drop American boots into China and Russia's backyard? Would this increase "the peace and stability of the region"? Russian President Vladimir Putin has already laid the ground rules for this scenario. Source
Despite his current silence, the echoes of his betrayal of the Palestinian people are there for everyone to hear.

Andrew Hughes is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Andrew Hughes