Amerikkka Has Lost Its Way

The Butcher’s Apron
By Mike Whitney

12/21/07 “ICH” — — Every four years the country is swept up in the pomp and pageantry of presidential elections. And every four years loyal Americans flock to the voting booths to select the candidate of their choice. Elections–we are told—are supposed to be the true expression of democratic government. But they aren’t. They’re a sham and most people know it. The balloting creates the illusion of choice where there is none. It’s become a meaningless ritual that has nothing to do with representative government.

The 2008 elections have already been marred by a number of controversies, the worst of which is the report that was published last Friday by Ohio’s top election official, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. The report proves that the voting systems that decided the 2004 election in Ohio were rife with “critical security failures”. The election was rigged; pure and simple–stolen by the Bush team and their friends in the establishment media who refuse to report the news. It’s actually funny, in a cynical kind of way. The perpetrators were so cocksure they could pull it off that—according to Democracy Now— “the servers for the computation of the Ohio vote count were in the same basement in Chattanooga, Tennessee that houses servers for the Republican National Committee. The programmers who (worked) for Ken Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State, were Republicans who did websites for the Bush administration.” (Democracy Now)

What gall. Blackwell’s thugs didn’t even try conceal what they were up to. Why should they care? It’s not like there’s an independent media that’s going to report the details of a stolen election. No way. Blackwell ripped off the election and then thumbed his nose at the public. No investigation. No accountability. No nothing. Just like a banana republic only bigger.

So why do we keep throwing billions of dollars down a black hole just to maintain this pathetic charade that fools no one? Why not just load up the boxcars with pallets of crisp-new hundred dollar bills and ship them off to Crawford where they end up anyway. Let Bush worry about how to distribute the loot. Besides, with Congress’ public approval dithering at 11%; we’d be better off paying them to stay at home and turn the House of Representatives into condos.

This year every one of the leading candidates is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Every one of them is a “dual loyalist” with a globalist agenda. Every one of them accepts the new regime of curtailed civil liberties, endless war, and free trade. There’s not a nationalist or a patriot among them. None. They’re all part of the same corporate effluent that washed into Washington on a wave of special interest payola drowning all visible symbols of a once-vital Republic. Romney pontificates about expanding Guantanamo while Clinton boasts about an attack on Iran. Blah, blah, blah. How can anyone listen to this gibberish? There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between any of them. They’re all lacquer-hair phonies who’ve never had an original thought in their lives. Everything they think or say comes off a cue-card or teleprompter that flashes poll-tested, focus-group mumbo-jumbo which they reiterate roboticly. It’s all rubbish.

If a prospective candidate hasn’t sworn his undying allegiance to the cabal of transnational corporations, or taken a blood-oath to defend the doctrine of unfettered self-aggrandizement, or pledged to carry out a bloodthirsty “economy-busting” global crusade; he is quickly banished to the wilderness.

Just look at Ron Paul, who collected $6 million in donations in a matter of hours but still can’t even get his picture in the papers. Why is that?

It’s because he hasn’t sold his soul to the carpetbagging freebooters who run the system. Apart from Kucinich, he’s the only red-blooded, Constitution-toting American in the race. The rest are just bunko-artists and Pharisees.

Everyone knows what’s going on. The whole campaign extravaganza is a pointless farce. Why continue the deception?

We all watched in 2000 while the five loonies on the Supreme Court suspended the hand counting of ballots, overturned the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court, and awarded the election to their own Party’s candidate. How is that any different than Blackwell’s manipulations in Ohio? It’s all the same. In fact, the 5 justices had so little regard for the intelligence of the American people they invoked the 14th amendment—the “equal protection” clause—which had never been used except in cases of racial discrimination. They didn’t care. Who was going to stop them?

Can you imagine, dear reader, the peals of laughter that must have gone up at the right-wing think tanks after that ruling? Hooray for the oligarchy of racketeers! Pass the brandy.

That was a turning point in American history. It showed that the ruling class really doesn’t care what the people think anymore. This is THEIR country and they’ll run it whatever way they want. To hell with democracy.

The reason there’s more coverage of the campaigns this year is simply because the boardroom Mandarins want to restore the illusion that we actually have a choice. We don’t. They pick the candidates and we pull the lever and go home. End of story. The debates are nothing more than a public relations gambit designed to lend a bit of credibility to a system that is rotten to the core. What part of the body-politic has been spared the cancerous ravages of corporate corruption. The Congress? The Executive? The High Court? The media?

Don’t make me laugh. The entire system is marinated in a culture of violence and dishonesty. Nothing is salvageable. It all stinks.

The real difference between the parties is minuscule but significant. The Democrats have become the party of traditional imperialism spearheaded by Brzezinski, Holbrooke, Albright and the other guardians of Empire. These are the master-puppeteers who operate behind the scenes for their well-heeled benefactors. Their focus is mainly on Central Asia; controlling resources from the Caspian Basin, “pacifying” Afghanistan, rallying the EU to a greater role in NATO, and continuing the apocryphal “war on terror” into infinity. It’s the Great Game redux.

The Republican Party has become the party of neoconservatives. Their operational plan is “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. It aligns the US with the foreign policy objectives of Israel’s Likud Party. The focus is balkanizing the Middle East, undermining Arab nationalism, installing US-Israeli client regimes, and controlling the regions prodigious natural resources. It is a straightforward strategy for regional hegemony.

This is the REAL split between the parties, not the meaningless Democrat-Republican labels. Presently, the traditional imperialists have regained the upper-hand as the Bush bandwagon lurches into the ditch. Of course, there is some cross-pollenizing between the two parties; the differences are not absolute. There’s plenty of gray-area and incestuous intermingling, but this is a pretty accurate overview. What’s important is that neither party has any intention of restoring the Bill of Rights, slowing the outsourcing of jobs, or abandoning the war on terror. No way. That is not in their collective interests at all.

When civil liberties are stripped away; elections become pointless. Freedom has nothing to do with pushing a colored-nob on a touch-screen computer every 4 years. Its about containing the power of the state. Doesn’t anyone grasp that? Freedom has become hollow buzzword that’s sprinkled through presidential speeches or used to defend the latest bloody intervention in some foreign country. It’s lost whatever meaning it had. We’ve forgotten that the Bill of Rights doesn’t give us special, superhuman powers. It was designed to be a straitjacket that would restrict the actions of power-hungry politicians and confine them within the law. That’s all it is; a shackle on government. Now, all that’s been lost. The basic rules of the game have changed; the social contract has been repealed. Even the flag, which once embodied the hopes and aspirations of the nation; has been raised over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and countless other black sites spread across the planet like grains of sand. What does the world see when they look at that flag now? Do they see a symbol of liberty and justice or the butcher’s apron flapping lazily above some far-flung torture chamber.

Everything has changed. America has lost its way. Casting a ballot for one silver-spoon CFR plutocrat over another accomplishes nothing. That’s not democracy. It’s a fraud.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Another Police Riot

December 20, 2007

NOLA CITY COUNCIL INCITES BRUTAL POLICE ATTACKS AND TEAR GASING OF PUBLIC HOUSING TENANTS AND THEIR ALLIES

EMERGENCY NATIONAL CALL TO STAND WITH NOLA PUBLIC HOUSING TENANTS TO STOP DEMOLITIONS OF THEIR HOMES

ASSEMBLE FOR CANDLELIGHT VIGIL AT HUD’S OFFICES, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NYC (WORTH ST BETWEEN LAFAYETTE & BROADWAY ENTRANCE) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2007 AT 6:30 PM

Today in the city council chambers in New Orleans, public housing tenants and their allies gathered to exercise their democratic right to speak against the vote to demolish their homes.

The city councils response was to call in the city council security, the NOLA swat teams and police force that began to forcible remove, arrest, beat, drag, brutalize and tear gas those who wanted the to express their opposition to the loss of stable housing stock.

Elderly women with canes were seen dragged across the city council parking lot, media persons, tenants and community supporters were tear gassed by an over zealous NOLA woman cop who tear gassed at rapid fire, as if she was on the battle fields of Iraq.

A temporary restraining order, was issued that prohibited the NOLA city council from moving forward with the bulldozing of over 4500 public housing units until they voted TO AUTHORIZE THE DEMOLITIONS FOR LAFITTE, ST BERNARD, COOPER, PEETE.

RAISE YOUR VOICE AND STATE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING IN NOLA. SAVE THE HOMES OF THE POOREST VICTIMS OF THE BREECHING OF THE LEVEES

CALL:

ALPHONSO JACKSON HUD SECY, 202-708-0417

CHRISTOPHER DOBBS, BANKING COMMITTEE CHAIR, 202-224-7391; FAX: 202-224-5137; 212-688-626

JOIN US FOR A CANDLE LIGHT VIGIL AT 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NYC – BRING YOUR BANNERS, CULTURAL INSTRUMENTS, CANDLES AND FLASH LIGHTS.

Contact: Brenda Stokely 917-566-4272

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Light the Highway – Save Something?

Faithful Say I-35 Is ‘Highway to God’
CNN, Posted: 2007-12-20 12:35:05

DALLAS, Texas (Dec. 20) — If you turn to the Bible — Isaiah Chapter 35, Verse 8 — you will see a passage that in part says, “A highway shall be there, and a road, and it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.”

Now, is it possible that this “highway” mentioned in Chapter 35 is actually Interstate 35 that runs through six U.S. states, from southern Texas to northern Minnesota? Some Christians have faith that is indeed the case.

It was with that interesting belief in mind that we decided to head to Texas, the southernmost state in the I-35 corridor, to do a story about a prayer campaign called “Light the Highway.”

Churchgoers in all six states recently finished 35 days of praying alongside Interstate 35, but the prayers are still continuing.

Some of the faithful believe that in order to fulfill the prophecy of I-35 being the “holy” highway, it needs some intensive prayer first. So we watched as about 25 fervent and enthusiastic Christians prayed on the the interstate’s shoulder in Dallas.

They chanted loudly and vibrantly, making many people in the neighborhood wonder what was going on. They prayed that adult businesses along the corridor would “see the light” and perhaps close down.

They prayed for safety and freedom from crime for people who lived along the interstate. They prayed that all Americans would accept Jesus into their lives.

The woman who came up with the concept of “Light the Highway” is a Texas minister named Cindy Jacobs.

She says she can’t be sure Interstate 35 really is what is mentioned in the Bible but says she received a revelation to start this campaign after “once again reading Isaiah, Chapter 35.”

Jacobs also points out that perhaps there is a link between the area near this highway and tragedies that have happened in history, such as the bridge collapse on I-35 in Minneapolis last August and the assassination of JFK 44 years ago near I-35 in Dallas. That’s why prayer certainly can’t hurt, she adds.

Now, it’s only fair to say most people, the religious and the non-religious alike, don’t buy any of this, but none more than the owners of some of the adult businesses along I-35.

At an adult go-go club, the owner tells us he resents people trying to impose their will on others. And he says his club holds fundraisers, food drives and toy drives to help the community.

But on the side of the road, the prayerful aren’t going to change their minds. Holy highways and nude clubs, they believe, are not a combination God has in mind.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Trickle Down Only Works If You Squeeze from the Top

A Lesson from Two Towns: Standing Up to NAFTA
By LAURA CARLSEN

Every hour, Mexico imports $1.5 million dollars worth of agricultural and food products, almost all from the United States.

In that same hour, 30 people-men, women, and children-leave their homes in the Mexican countryside to take up the most dangerous journey of their lives-as migrants to the United States.

No matter what one’s stance on these two fundamental phenomena of our age-economic integration and immigration-one thing is absolutely clear: they are related.

As the final phase of implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) approaches, the debate remains disappointingly stuck in ideologically defined terms. Proponents of the free trade model point, not surprisingly, to increased trade as proof of its success. Opponents cite negative impacts from the point of view of their respective sectors, issues, and interests.

In January 2008 NAFTA enters its last stage of implementation in which all remaining tariffs on corn, beans, and other sensitive agricultural products will be eliminated. With severely negative impacts predicted for Mexican farmers and an accumulation of social problems in all three countries, this phase obliges policymakers to finally take NAFTA to task for how it has affected the daily lives of North American citizens.

Applying the NAFTA model elsewhere in the world, U.S. negotiators have hammered through “free trade agreements” (FTAs) bent on prying open new markets for U.S. products and guaranteeing favorable conditions for investors. These are laudable objectives, but for too long they have ignored the fact that this narrow focus has high social costs in our country and in the partner countries.

There comes a time when we have to determine whether those social costs are worth the benefits and consider a change in course.

To do this, we need comprehensive studies that look at the macroeconomic data and statistics, but also at livelihoods, communities, and families.

Two Towns

The reality reflected in carefully selected numbers too often hides the devastation in human lives. Two towns-El Paso, Texas and Nochixtlan, Oaxaca-illustrate some of the real costs of NAFTA.

Shortly after NAFTA went into effect, companies located in El Paso began an exodus over the border. The textile industry was the hardest hit. The community organization Mujer Obrera reports that between 1994 and 2007 some 50,000 apparel workers lost their jobs. Two-thirds of them were women, mostly of Mexican descent. As companies closed shop, women workers lost their jobs and the county of El Paso, now tied for the third poorest county in the nation, never found a way to compensate.

As a result, poverty has increased by over 30% since 1999 and today nearly one of every three El Paso residents lives in poverty, 57% of them women. Federal money under NAFTA for retraining programs has been insufficient and misdirected, as former workers are either poorly trained or trained for jobs that do not exist in the community. Year after year, El Paso drops down in average income.

What has happened is no longer due primarily to job loss. Most of the poor are working poor, according to the 2005 census. They have lost income because employers are paying less and more people are employed in the informal sector. Under this post-NAFTA scenario, women and children bear the brunt-a full 45% of women-headed households live below the poverty level.

Nochixtlan, Oaxaca also suffered under NAFTA, but in a very different way. In the small Mixteco Indian community of southern Mexico, corn farming supported nearly all the inhabitants in one way or another.

After centuries of misuse, the land suffered from one of the worst erosion rates in the world and chemical farming had depleted the soil. Then, lower yields were combined with the impact of increased imports under NAFTA that drove the domestic price of corn down 59% between 1991 and 2006. Nochixtlan farmers began to abandon their farms, and today the Mixteca region of Oaxaca has one the country’s highest rates of out-migration. Here, too, no government programs came to the rescue or even attempted to soften the blow.

But El Paso and Nochixtlan have something else in common besides tragedy-the tremendous will of the community to pick itself up and move on. In El Paso, the seamstresses have created a community development plan that includes food gardens, a restaurant, an import business, and a daycare service. All are small scale but they are serious attempts to create sustainable jobs that fulfill human needs.

In Nochixtlan, a farmers’ organization has built trenches to stop erosion, started a reforestation program that has planted three million native variety trees to date, and instituted sustainable farming techniques. As they attempt to save their village, they are also contributing to the global battle against global warming and environmental decline.

The efforts of both are slowly reviving their communities. But they need help.

U.S. trade policy sent these communities into deep crises. A new trade policy can help pull them out, and avoid a similar fate for other communities.

The terms of NAFTA must be modified to permit government regulation of basic food production and supply, and provide policy instruments so poor Mexican farmers are not forced to compete with subsidized large companies for their own markets. The petition to withdraw corn and beans from the free trade agreement and support small farmers and food sovereignty is not a blow against free trade precepts but a common-sense demand for public policy that places lives and livelihoods first.

There must be mechanisms of flexibility when the terms of trade threaten livelihoods, food security, or health. This flexibility has been lacking in NAFTA and other FTAs. Negotiations have been inflexible, with developing countries finally giving in to terms they know will harm part of their population. The pound of flesh exacted from poor countries in exchange for access to the U.S. market in the end hurts both partner countries and the United States , since the terms of the agreements exacerbate inequality and close off opportunities, leading to increased immigration.

U.S. negotiators call this success but the long-term price in international relations will be high and the immediate price is the rejection of U.S. trade policy we see in many Latin American countries, accompanied by resentment of the United States for the terms of imposition.

There is a false dichotomy presented to us that divides protectionism-seen as an evil of the past-and free trade as the only path to the future. Free trade has even been presented as synonymous with freedom in the political realm and the Western Hemisphere portrayed as divided between the democratic open-market supporters and nations searching to mitigate the polarizing effects of trade and investment liberalization. Until we reject ideological posturing and analyze the real impact of FTAs we will never arrive at more just and viable trade policies for all our countries and a more prosperous and stable hemisphere.

To develop a sustainable and fair trade policy this debate must become less dogmatic and more pragmatic. It’s time to take a close look at what really is happening under these agreements and be open to corrections or creative changes in course. Communities have already begun to do that and a new trade policy can find many pointers in these local experiences.

1) Trade policy should be accompanied by aid for sustainable development:

U.S. aid to Mexico should be used to encourage efforts like Nochixtlan and compensate for damage done by NAFTA by funding new economic initiatives. NAFTA’s extension, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) has gone off in the complete opposite direction. Instead of directing aid and programs to regions negatively affected by the agreement, it has facilitated terms for transnational corporations-the only sector of society directly represented in its negotiations. Most recently, the SPP process has led to Plan Mexico and a tenfold leap in proposed U.S. aid to Mexico-but for enforcement, intelligence, and military equipment. This creates a grave danger of militarizing a politically polarized Mexico and increasing the possibility of conflict. Creating healthy employment in the United States and Mexico would have a far greater impact on reducing the illegal drug trade than surveillance planes.

2) We need comprehensive studies:

For too long we have ignored or sought to patch over the serious problems generated in the United States and Mexico by NAFTA. We have abundant information on trade flows from the USTR, but little on the real consequence on real human lives. It’s past time to call for studies that assess the economic data but also report on changing social indices even when direct cause and effect with NAFTA is difficult to ascertain.

The results then should be heeded. One of the very few studies of NAFTA in Mexico by the General Accounting Office concluded years ago that there was a pressing need for rural compensation funds. Nothing was done. Since then many of the predicted negative impacts have occurred, and there has been no policy response whatsoever.

3) A moratorium should be called on all new FTAs, including the three remaining before the U.S. Congress: South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

The moratorium should last until new studies of the immediate and long-term impact of FTAs have been thoroughly evaluated so as to determine whether this model works. The three FTAs before congress should be rejected not just for the particular circumstances of each case but because the FTA model is seriously flawed as an instrument of a constructive trade and foreign policy.

What we already know about NAFTA-style Free Trade Agreements is that along with increasing trade, they generate inequality. Adopting a trade policy that widens the gap between rich and poor here and abroad does nobody a service in the long term. Unless we change course, the social costs of our current trade policy will grow over the years and what we already see-unemployment and underemployment in our communities and abroad, environmental degradation, natural resource depletion, and growing gaps between those who benefit and those who are harmed-could develop into more serious problems of instability and widespread poverty.

A new policy would assure predictability and stable markets for U.S. producers, guarantees-not privileges-for U.S. investors, and basic rights for workers everywhere. It will imply a more active role of governments in balancing a competitive open-market system with protection of weaker sectors and the common good.

It will also mean denying some of the demands large corporations make in the name of competitiveness. But that’s healthy. If there is one thing we’ve learned from the growth of inequality under NAFTA, it’s that trickle down doesn’t work unless you squeeze from the top. Companies must recognize responsibility for the communities whose labor and resources go to make the products they sell and the profits they reap.

Powerful interests will complain, but greater fairness for all-between employers and employees, the United States, and its partner nations-will build a more peaceful and stable world for the future.

And that will benefit all of us.

Laura Carlsen (lcarlsen@ciponline.org) is director of the Americas Policy Program (www.americaspolicy.org) in Mexico where she has worked as a writer and political analyst for two decades.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Hillary – Simply Another Opportunistic Politician

Hillary Clinton Can’t be Trusted on Iraq
By Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus

Clinton’s position on Iraq is almost indistinguishable from Bush’s.

Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans — and even a larger majority of Democrats — believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces.

As a result, it is important to review Senator Clinton’s past and current positions regarding the Iraq War. Indeed, despite her efforts in response to public opinion polls to come across as an opponent of the war, Hillary Clinton has proven to be one of the most hard-line Democratic senators in support of a military response to the challenges posed by Iraq. She has also been less than honest in justifying her militaristic policies, raising concerns that she might support military interventions elsewhere.

Pre-War Militarism

Senator Clinton’s militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush’s 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 — known as Operation Desert Fox — she claimed that “[T]he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.” In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.

Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband’s administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from “containment” — which had been quite successful in defending Iraq’s neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority — to “regime change,” which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.

Prior to the 2003 invasion, Clinton insisted that Iraq still had a nuclear program, despite a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), subsequent studies that indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled a full decade earlier, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. Similarly, even though Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs had been dismantled years earlier, she also insisted that Iraq had rebuilt its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. And, even though the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990 made it physically impossible for Iraq to have reconstituted such weapons, she insisted that “It is clear … that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

In the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq’s supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq’s possession of such weapons “are not in doubt” and was “undisputed.” Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 2005 speech at the UN was “compelling” although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims that Iraq had reconstituted these proscribed weapons, weapons programs, and delivery systems. In addition, although top strategic analysts correctly informed her that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.”

The Lead-Up to War

Though the 2003 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was inaccurate in a number of respects, it did challenge the notion of any operational ties between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda and questioned some of the more categorical claims by President Bush about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, Senator Clinton didn’t even bother to read it. She now claims that it wasn’t necessary for her to have actually read the 92-page document herself because she was briefed on the contents of the report. However, since no one on her staff was authorized to read the report, it’s unclear who could have actually briefed her.

During the floor debate over the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, Clinton was the only Democratic senator to have categorically accepted the Bush administration’s claims regarding Iraq’s alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, Iraq’s alleged long-range missile capabilities, and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. (Some Democratic senators accepted some of those claims, but not all of them.)

In the months leading up the war, Senator Clinton chose to ignore the pleas of the hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating in her state and across the country against the war and similarly brushed off calls by religious leaders, scholars, community activists, and others to oppose it. Perhaps most significant was her refusal to consider the anti-war appeals by leaders of the Catholic Church and virtually every mainline Protestant denomination, which noted that it did not meet the traditional criteria in the Christian tradition for a just war. Instead, Senator Clinton embraced the arguments of the right-wing fundamentalist leadership who supported the war. This categorical rejection of the perspective of the mainstream Christian community raises concerns about her theological perspectives on issues of war and peace.

In March 2003, well after UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to return and engage in unfettered inspections and were not finding any WMDs, Senator Clinton made clear that the United States should invade that Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam Hussein to abide by President Bush’s ultimatum to resign as president and leave the country, in the apparent belief that the United States had the right to unilaterally make such demands of foreign leaders and to invade and occupy their countries if they refused. Said Senator Clinton, “The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”

When President Bush launched the invasion soon thereafter and spontaneous protests broke out across the country, Senator Clinton voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution that “commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President . . . in the conflict against Iraq.”

Aftermath of invasion

Even after the U.S. forces invaded and occupied Iraq and confirmed that — contrary to Senator Clinton’s initial justification for the war — Iraq did not have WMDs, WMD programs, offensive delivery systems, or ties to al-Qaeda, she defended her vote to authorize the invasion anyway. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that December, she declared, “I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote” and was one that “I stand by.”

In the face of growing doubts about American forces involved in a deepening counter-insurgency war, she urged “patience” and expressed her concern about the lack of will “to stay the course” among some Americans. “Failure is not an option” in Iraq, she insisted. “We have no option but to stay involved and committed.” Indeed, long before President Bush announced his “surge,” Senator Clinton called for the United States to send more troops.

During a trip to Iraq in February 2005, she insisted that the U.S. occupation was “functioning quite well,” although the security situation had deteriorated so badly that the four-lane divided highway on flat open terrain connecting the airport with the capital could not be secured at the time of her arrival and a helicopter had to transport her to the Green Zone. Though 55 Iraqis and one American soldier were killed during her brief visit, she insisted — in a manner remarkably similar to Vice President Cheney — that the rise in suicide bombings was evidence that the insurgency was failing.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” that same month, she argued that it “would be a mistake” to immediately withdraw U.S. troops or even simply set a timetable for withdrawal, claiming that “We don’t want to send a signal to insurgents, to the terrorists, that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain.” Less than two years ago, she declared, “I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit.” And, just last year, on an appearance on ABC’s Nightline, she described how “I’ve taken a lot of heat from my friends who have said, ‘Please, just, you know, throw in the towel and say let’s get out by a date certain. I don’t think that’s responsible.” When Representative John Murtha made his first call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in November 2005, she denounced his effort, calling a withdrawal of U.S. forces “a big mistake.”

Read the rest here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Casting Doubt on the Political Success of the Surge

Here is Juan Cole’s take on the following article:

The US troop escalation that began last February seems to be implicated in the displacement of over one million Iraqis to Syria between March and October of this year, adding to the nearly 450,000 that fled there in 2006. This is according to projections from a United Nations weighted survey of nearly 800 refugees. Some 78% of those interviewed in Syria said that they came from Baghdad.

Many of the refugees are from the white collar middle class, and are the people Iraq can least afford to lose. Most of them are only 3 months or less from exhausting all their saving and being thrown into complete destitution. Children are not being educated, and literacy is falling dramatically in the next generation. Many girls are forced into ‘survival sex,’ i.e. prostitution.

How the US ‘surge’ drove one million Iraqis to Syria last spring and summer is a great mystery, and casts severe doubt on its political success. A significant proportion of these one million Surge Victims appear to have been Baghdad Sunnis, since from January of 2007 through July 2007 the US military admits that Baghdad went from being 65% Shiite to being 75% Shiite. Since another 500,000 left between July and October, depending on what proportion of those were Sunnis, Baghdad could now be even more than 3/4s Shiite. The Sunnis are not going to take this lying down, and the ‘surge’ seems to me to have set the stage for 1) a violent return of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs to their usurped homes in Baghdad and 2) therefore a second Battle for Baghdad as soon as the US forces in Iraq are too weak to prevent it.

Source

Survey: Many Iraqis in Syria fled during U.S. troop buildup
By Hannah Allam | McClatchy Newspapers

CAIRO, Egypt — One in five Iraqi refugees in Syria has been tortured or suffered from other violence, and more than a third fled their homeland between July and October, at the height of the U.S. troop buildup that was intended to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad, preliminary data from a new United Nations study show.

The survey also found that the refugee population is highly educated — nearly a third have university degrees, including master’s and doctorates — and that many refugees are only weeks away from exhausting their savings.

The survey, which the IPSOS market research firm conducted in October and November, is the most comprehensive study to date of the 1.5 million Iraqis who’ve sought safety in Syria from the sectarian violence at home. The results are based on interviews with 754 refugees, who were asked detailed questions that ranged from whether they’d been hit by grenades to how they treat their children’s illnesses. Full results are expected in early January.

The U.N. survey includes special questions about trauma that researchers from Harvard University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hope will help them determine for the first time the extent to which the violence in Iraq has damaged the mental health and stability of the war’s survivors.

The survey may provide some insight into the impact of U.S. actions. The preliminary results suggest that as American forces moved into Baghdad’s neighborhoods to establish security, large numbers of Iraqis moved out.

Of the refugees polled, 78 percent said they’d come from Baghdad, which has been the focus of military operations since the U.S. troop buildup began last February. Thirty-five percent said they’d fled between July and October, when U.S. troop strength peaked. Another 30 percent said they’d fled to Syria last year, as violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims intensified.

More than half the survey’s participants said they’d received direct threats or had lived through bombings. Eleven percent had been assaulted and 6 percent had been kidnapped.

The number of refugees with missing or dead relatives has risen steadily in the past four years; 54 percent had dead or missing family members this year, up from 22 percent last year. Murder was cited as the No. 1 cause of death, listed in 78 percent of the cases in the U.N. survey. A majority of respondents, 62 percent, blamed sectarian militias for the deaths. Twenty-eight percent listed “unknown” and 2 percent listed “al Qaida.”

Sybella Wilkes, the Damascus-based U.N. spokeswoman on refugee issues, said the survey’s results on financial instability confirmed the observations of field workers, who’d noticed new levels of desperation among the most recent Iraqi refugees. Forty percent have been living in Syria for less than a year, according to the survey, and they’re finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

“We’ve seen the poorest of the poor here,” Wilkes said. “We’re seeing more homelessness, child labor, survival sex, early marriage and temporary marriage. The floodgates opened in 2006, and the Iraqis who’ve come since then have been much poorer” than earlier waves of refugees.

Thirty-three percent of the Iraqis surveyed predicted that they’d run out of money within three months, while a quarter of the refugees depend on remittances from relatives in Iraq or abroad. Nearly all refugees are renters, and 71 percent of them live with other family members in apartments with two to four rooms. Nearly a quarter of respondents lived in one-room housing.

Groceries are a top expense, and most respondents said they hadn’t received any food assistance from the U.N. or other agencies. Rice and lentils were listed as the most-needed staples. As of November, 51,000 Iraqis in Syria receive monthly food baskets from the U.N.’s World Food Program.

Education is another troubling issue. Less than 3 percent of the Iraqi adults surveyed were illiterate, and 35 percent of them had attended universities. But dropout rates among school-aged refugees have more than doubled since May, from 21 percent to 46 percent. Of those who’ve dropped out, 19 percent are working.

Health care also is precarious. Although an estimated 19,000 refugees registered with the U.N. have chronic illnesses, 19 percent aren’t taking medication because they can’t afford it.

The survey indicates that Iraqis are losing faith in their prospects of resettlement abroad and are focusing more on survival in Syria. The number of refugees who said they’d registered with the U.N. primarily for the chance of resettlement dropped from 27 percent last May to 15 percent in November. About half now say their main reason for registering is to obtain refugee certificates, which help them gain food assistance and school vouchers in Syria.

Source, with links to UN source document

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Using Some Elementary Arithmetic – So Sad

Mirage Of Improvement In Iraq
By Dahr Jamail

12/19/07 “ICH” — – The November 19 New York Times announces, “Baghdad’s Weary Start to Exhale as Security Improves.”

The Washington Post on November 23 reports, “Returnees Find a Capital Transformed.”

People in the US are willing to believe the establishment media telling them that refugees are returning to their homes in Baghdad in an environment of improved security and new hope.

It is true that there have been fewer American soldiers killed in Baghdad and the number of Iraqis fleeing to Syria has declined. However, this relatively quieter security situation needs to be placed in its proper context, something the Western media steadfastly refuses to do.

We are proudly informed that buying off Sunni militias and resistance fighters at $300 per month is among the latest U.S. military tactics, but we are conscientiously kept uninformed about the implications of such a move. Nor is there any mention of the growing antagonism it has generated in the US-backed Iraqi Government under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. By its own admission, the U.S. military has paid over $17 million, so far, to recruit 77,000 Sunni fighters, many of whom were launching attacks against the Americans a few weeks ago (International Herald Tribune).

Post purchase, the US military has rechristened them “Concerned Local Citizens,” or “Awakening Forces.” The target is to procure another 10,000.

The current recruitment has indeed contributed to a de-escalation of violence in the capital city, and across much of al-Anbar province, which comprises one third of the geographic area of Iraq.

Reiterated Strategy

We are proudly informed that buying off Sunni militias and resistance fighters at $300 per month is among the latest U.S. military tactics, but kept uninformed about the implications of such a move.

After it failed to take control of Fallujah during the April 2004 assault, the US employed a similar tactic. It was a presidential election year in the US (as is 2008) and in order to save face, the U.S. military “handed” over security operations in Fallujah to the very people it had fought in April. Money and weapons flooded the city and strengthened the mujahedeen.

At the time a much larger battle was in the offing, the November 2004 U.S. siege of Fallujah, which left thousands dead, and destroyed approximately 70 percent of the city. It is worth noting that the attack was launched on November 8, 2004, just days after it was determined that George W. Bush would remain in office.

Under the “new and improved” conditions, consider the following:

* the fragility of the political balance in Iraq;

* the Middle Eastern regional instability;

* the ever intensifying U.S. threats of an attack against Iran;

* the likelihood of the “Concerned Local Citizens” staying loyal to their new masters;
and then let us consider what calamity awaits the occupied country.

Political Capital

Both the Maliki government and the Bush administration are using the return of refugees as political capital. This projection bears little relation to the ground reality.

To place an inconsequential fact on record, since the beginning of the US “surge” earlier this year, the number of people displaced from their homes in Iraq has quadrupled, and the number of detentions carried out by both Iraqi and U.S. security forces has escalated astronomically. On November 13, the International Committee for the Red Cross estimated there are around 60,000 people detained in U.S. and Iraqi prisons around Iraq.

Refugees returning to Baghdad have been projected in the West as evidence of the “surge” having brought security to Baghdad. Both the Maliki government and the Bush administration are using them as political capital. This projection bears little relation to the ground reality which indicates a steep decline in the number of returnees.

A recent UN survey, revealing the modest number of families returning to Baghdad, shows that “46 percent were leaving [Syria] because they could not afford to stay; 25 percent said they fell victim to a stricter Syrian visa policy; and only 14 percent said they were returning because they had heard about improved security” (The New York Times).

It crucial to consider, but evidently not by the western media, that as of October 1st the Syrian government has imposed new visa restrictions whereby Iraqis who can prove they need medical treatment or intend to conduct business alone are permitted entry into Syria.

Iraqis who are barred entrance have the option of staying in a refugee camp on the border in the middle of the desert, or returning home.

Not More is Not Less

“It is true that hundreds of fighters were killed or detained by the so-called Awakening Forces, but there are thousands who will never quit fighting until this occupation is ended.”

Let us not discount the fact that the “lower violence rate” being reported by the Western media establishments imply that violence in Iraq is now down to 2005 levels, which at the time was considered catastrophic. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that “nearly 90 percent of US journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit.” Those surveyed have admitted that the “coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict” (Reuters).

The not-so-rosy reality is that the resistance has merely shifted location. As Ali Khamees, a former major of the Iraqi army, recently told my Iraqi colleague in Ramadi, Ali al-Fadhily, “it is true that hundreds of fighters were killed or detained by the so-called Awakening Forces, but there are thousands who will never quit fighting until this occupation is ended. I believe it is a new strategy employed by the resistance to reduce the suffering of people in al-Anbar and move somewhere else to fight.”

Attacks against U.S. forces have increased notably in other Iraqi provinces like Diyala, Saladin and Mosul.

On November 28, a female suicide bomber wounded seven US soldiers in Baquba, the capital city of the volatile Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. The previous day in the same city, another suicide bomber detonated his explosives filled vest in front of the police headquarters, killing six people and wounding seven, according to Iraqi police reports.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a 32 year old Ramadi resident cautioned my Iraqi colleague, al-Fadhily, “those Americans thought they would decrease the resistance attacks by separating the people of Iraq into sects and tribes. They are going deeper into the shifting sand. The collaborators are fooling the Americans right now, and will in the end use this strategy against them.”

Provinces like Saladin, Diyala and the Kurdish controlled north, now under regular bombardment from the Turkish military which is threatening invasion, have become more volatile than ever.

The Bush administration talks of withdrawing up to 5,000 troops from Diyala province, but on November 24 US military officials revealed that the overall number of American troops in Diyala will actually increase since the replacement brigade for the one being removed is larger and will mean more boots on the ground.

Crafting Political Chaos

“Those Americans . . . are going deeper into the shifting sand. The collaborators are fooling the Americans right now, and will in the end use this strategy against them”

The U.S. policy of propping up the Sunni militias whilst backing the Shia government has heightened the volatility of an already precarious political situation. Deep fissures are one fall out of this classic divide and rule tactic.

On November 29, legislators blocked Prime Minister Maliki’s attempts to get approval for nominees to fill the vacant portfolios of justice and communications in the cabinet. This was done by getting legislators from several parties to boycott the session and ensure that parliament did not have the requisite quorum to vote on the nominations.

The cabinet and parliament in Baghdad remain paralyzed thereby effectively derailing US efforts to push legislation for privatization of Iraq’s oil. Over a dozen ministers have quit Maliki’s government this year. These include members of the Accordance Front, the largest Sunni block in the parliament, which withdrew its support in August. The cabinet is presently composed primarily of Shia and Kurds which only underscores the sectarian and ethnic battle lines that the U.S. policies have drawn in Iraq.

Before swallowing the Bush administration rhetoric of things getting better in Iraq today, we would do well to cast a glance at the real picture of the calamitous occupation.

The Just Foreign Policy group in the US places over 1.1 million Iraqis dead as a direct result of the US led invasion and occupation. A conservative estimate of the wounded would be 3 million.

The UNHCR enlists an approximate 2.2 million Iraqis that have fled the country altogether, and another 2.4 million that have been internally displaced. An Oxfam International report released in July found another 4 million Iraqis who were in need of emergency assistance.

Iraq’s population at the time of the US invasion in March 2003 was roughly 27 million, and today it is approximately 23 million. Elementary arithmetic indicates that currently over half the population of Iraq are either refugees, in need of emergency aid, wounded, or dead.

While the US establishment media proffers us the assurance of “Baghdad’s Weary Start to Exhale as Security Improves,” for most Iraqis safe and secure survival remains a distant dream. For Americans it is perhaps time to act on the words of Carl Schurz and “cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country — when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’”

Dahr Jamail is IPS’ specialist writer who has spent eight months reporting from inside Iraq and has been covering the Middle East for several years.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

We’re Not Having It Your Way !!

Farmworkers and Students Take On Burger King
Michael Gould-Wartofsky

It’s tomato season in Immokalee, Florida. Today, like every other day, the tomato pickers will emerge from their trailers in the dark before dawn, and twelve hours later, they will return in the dark of the Florida night.

In the interval, the pickers will be picked up in battered trucks and shipped off to the fields. They will stoop and sweat to fill buckets with tomatoes, thirty-two pounds of them, for forty-five cents a bucket (the same piece rate, in real dollars, as in 1980). They will have to work fast and pick two tons today if they want to take home minimum wage.

The tomatoes will make their way to the growers, then to the vendors, then on to Whoppers and Happy Meals at fast food joints across the country. The money saved by paying poverty wages–or in extreme cases, nothing at all–will find its way into the profit margins of corporations like Burger King.

On November 30, the King’s corporate castle was under siege as the tomato pickers, most of them immigrant workers organized through the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), surged from the fields of Immokalee into the streets of Miami on a nine-mile march.

Their demands were simple: Pay a penny more per pound. Work with the CIW to end the abuse of workers. Zero tolerance for modern-day slavery in the fields.

And the farm workers weren’t alone. Hundreds of students, workers, clergy and allied activists marched with them, as they have since the birth of the Campaign for Fair Food in 2001–to “penny-per-pound” victories at Taco Bell in 2005 and McDonald’s last spring.

Marching, dancing, singing, shouting, pushing strollers, banging drums, bearing puppets of “the King” and cut-out buckets of tomatoes and flags inscribed with “Respect” and “Hope,” the 1,500-strong pageant against poverty paraded from the offices of BK co-owner Goldman Sachs to the King’s own 1 Whopper Way.

There, they delivered hundreds of worn work boots belonging to farmworkers who could not make it out of the fields that day. “Doubt our poverty?” they asked. “Walk in our shoes.”

Were BK executives to walk in their shoes, workers say, they would know that a penny more per pound–which would cost the company all of $250,000 a year–could mean the difference between their families getting fed or going hungry, getting care or going sick. It could mean the difference between the 1980 piece rate and a living wage for 2007, effectively doubling their daily pay,

The workers hold BK responsible for the difference: “Burger King has an active hand in creating these unconscionable conditions,” says CIW spokesman Lucas Benitez, “as its enormous purchasing power allows it to demand lower and lower prices, resulting in lower and lower wages.” Reports from Florida’s growers confirm the corporate connection.

A code of conduct and an independent monitoring system, as the CIW is also demanding, could in turn mean the difference between slavery and freedom for Florida’s most exploited workers, over 1,000 of whom have been found held against their will–often at gunpoint–in cases uncovered by the CIW and prosecuted over the last decade.

But instead of working with the CIW, the King has launched a public relations blitz and teamed up with a notorious agribusiness lobby, the Florida Tomato Growers’ Exchange, in its own penny-pinching counter-operation.

With BK’s backing, the Exchange has set out not only to sabotage the new campaign, but to dismantle the penny-per-pound agreements won by the CIW at Yum! Brands and McDonald’s. Calling the demand “pretty much near un-American,” the Exchange now threatens $100,000 fines against growers who pass on the extra penny.

As Lucas Benitez sees it, “Burger King has allied itself with the tomato industry … to push us back, back toward the same abuse and exploitation we have experienced for decades. But we will not be turned back.”

Burger King counters that “Florida growers have a right to run their business how they see fit.” To some farmworkers, whose own rights don’t bear so much as a mention, this statement echoes the words of Florida’s slaveholders and sweatshop farmers.

Francisca Cortez, another worker in the CIW, tells the story of two growers who were overheard saying of the tomato pickers, “A tractor can’t tell its boss how to run it.” As Cortez explains, “They were saying that as if the workers were like tractors. And for us, our response is that we’re not tractors, we’re human beings who need to be respected, who have rights.”

The farmworkers’ campaign to be treated like human beings, not tractors, has struck a deep chord among students across the country, who have rallied to the workers’ side through the Student-Farmworker Alliance (SFA). This alliance is flipping the script on corporate Goliaths like the King, combining the power of those who produce the food and those who consume it.

It is here, among its youthful target audience, that Burger King may learn the real price of intransigence, which could amount to much more than a penny per pound. It could cost the King his crown jewel–his brand image for a generation.

“We use our strategic place as the target consumers of these corporations,” says SFA organizer Marc Rodrigues, “organizing a coordinated rejection of and protest campaign against the corporations until they agree to the workers’ demands.”

The recent past is a prologue. Between 2001 and 2005, the Taco Bell boycott led students to “boot the Bell” off dozens of campuses nationwide. Last year’s McDonald’s campaign sparked student solidarity from Austin to Boston, yielding victory with the threat of a boycott. Last month’s “Kingdoom Days of Action” saw more than thirty protests ripple across the country in a single week.

On November 30, the march on Burger King reverberated all the way to Wall Street, as student activists dressed as penny-pinching financiers showed up at Goldman Sachs’s headquarters in New York City, pointing out that the bonuses of twelve of its executives exceeded $200 million last year–twice what Florida’s 10,000 tomato pickers took home.

Students see a direct connection to their own lives, too. “For students, it’s an issue of being cynically targeted and manipulated by this corporation,” explains Rodrigues, “trying to buy our loyalty and suck the money out our pockets…. So it’s a question of us standing alongside farmworkers and making sure that all of us are having our dignity, rights and lives respected.”

The campaign has tapped into a deepening disaffection with corporate power and profit amid poverty. To some, it looks like the new wave of the anti-sweatshop and global justice movements first seen in the 1990s–only the sweatshops are closer to home. To others, it looks like a new labor movement, a new student movement, a new immigrants’ movement.

The Campaign for Fair Food is all of these things, and at its core, it is a movement concerning some of the most basic struggles in American life: slavery versus freedom, fast food versus fair food, community versus corporate control, dehumanization versus human dignity.

“As poor people, part of a poor community here in the US, the dignity of our community is the most valuable thing,” insists tomato picker Gerardo Reyes. “And we must defend that dignity. We cannot let [corporations like Burger King] step on the most valuable thing for us, our dignity. That’s why we must keep on going with the struggle.”

Burger King may not want its customers to hear from people like Gerardo Reyes, or see the farmworkers who toil for its tomatoes. But they will not be silent, nor will they be invisible any longer. Young people are listening, and looking, and they’ve got their own message for the King: We’re not having it your way.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

This Could Breach the Bulwark

Fatwa against the dollar?
Posted by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on 17 Dec 2007

To all intents and purposes, the Wahabi religious establishment of Saudi Arabia has just issued a fatwa against the US dollar. This bears watching.

A message issued by 26 leading clerics warns that inflation has reached intolerable levels in the Gulf kingdom.

While it does not vilify the dollar explicitly, the apparent political aim is to undermine the country’s dollar peg.

“The rulers should seek to try to remedy this crisis in a way that would ease people’s suffering.”

“We direct this message to the rulers and officials: we remind you of Prophet Mohammad’s words that you are shepherds who are responsible for your flock,” it said.

The statement was posted across the Islamic world. The background to this has been a raging debate in Gulf religious and economic circles about the destructive effects of the sliding dollar.

Among the lead-authors is Sheikh Nasser al-Omar, known for his fatwa against US-led forces in Iraq.

He has long preached the collapse of American-led capitalism, and now sees a perfect moment to plunge the knife. We can guess that al-Qaeda Inc is thinking along the same lines.

My own hunch is that the next al-Qaeda strike will not be a symbolic blow to a great building or city, but rather a carefully-timed economic blow: either by cutting – or trying to cut – the oil jugular, or by trying to precipitate a run on the dollar.

The Gulf pegs are preventing the region from taking action to stop the oil boom spiralling out of control.

Half the Mid-East is now overheating. Property booms have reached unstable extremes in almost all the oil states. Construction has become maniacal.

CPI inflation is 5.35pc in Saudi Arabia, the highest in over ten years. It has reached 10.1pc in the United Arab Emirates and 12.2pc in Qatar.

The dollar pegs – designed to anchor the currencies – are now forcing the Petrodollar economies to import US devaluation and monetary stimulus.

What has been a simmering problem for over a year, has become untenable since the Federal Reserve began slashing interest rates.

The Gulf has roughly $3.5trn under management in wealth funds and central banks, so a dollar shift makes waves.

Qatar has already slashed the dollar holding of its future generation fund from 40pc to 98pc.

Stephen Lewis, global strategist at Insinger de Beaufort, said the Fatwa was ominous.

“The Saudi government has been the one institution in the region battling to preserve the oil link with the dollar. If these clerics are able to wear down Saudi resistance, this could breach the bulwark. The dollar would quite likely be abandoned as the chief currency for pricing oil in world markets,” he said.

If the Mid-East breaks the pegs, a chain reaction threatens to follow across Asia. China now has 6.9pc inflation. It may have to ditch its cheap yuan policy soon enough anyway, or face the sort of double digit rises that destroy regimes.

The Saudi royal family rules by a delicate compromise. Although pro-Western in military and economic alliances, it relies on the endorsement of the Wahabi clerics as a key source of legitimacy.

Reluctance to confront this menacing bloc is the main reason why Riyadh tolerated – and helped – the Bin Laden network for so long.

The statement called on the Saudis to take action to stop food price soaring to fresh highs, if necessary with subsidies on key staples.

For now, the dollar is bouncing back. Speculative flows have swung back from euros to dollars after America’s CPI inflation shock of 4.3pc released last week.

One week’s data mean nothing. As the Fed cuts rates ever further to the cushion US property crash bites, Mid-East inflation will go from bad to seriously ugly with the policies now in place.

The Saudis, Qataris, and Emirates have all said they will preserve the pegs. But fatwas tend to up the ante.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

The Imperial Bullshit Level – Piled As High As Ever

An Inside Job: Is the NIE Bush’s Watergate?
By SAUL LANDAU

“Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” – George Bush, Dec. 4, 2007

“We have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. . . . Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.” – Prof. Harry Frankfurt (1986)

In early December, an intelligence report served as the instrument to disgrace Bush and Cheney. Behind this apparently benign act stood the relieved super rich and their government guardian who saw the reckless policies of Bush and Cheney as a threat to their power and fortunes.

In the early 1970s, the Establishment worried about Nixon. He brought a California crowd into the White House who didn’t consult the bastions of old power and wealth. Then, “Deep Throat” serendipitously emerged to reveal to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein details of Nixon’s involvement in a criminal break- in at Democratic Party Headquarters in Washington’s Watergate complex, and of a subsequent White House cover up. In August 1974, Nixon ­ facing impeachment — resigned. The power structure breathed a collective sigh of relief.

In December 2007, intelligence boss Mike McConnell released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report that humiliated Bush and Cheney. By making facts about the non-functioning of Iran’s nuke program public, the NIE removed the Bush zealots’ ostensible reason for starting another war. The “experts” concluded “with high confidence” that Iran had shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003, thus nullifying the Bush’s pretext for bombing that country. The spooks also deduced that Iran might make a weapon by 2015 ­ if it reactivated its dormant program.

Compare that report with Bush’s September claim that Iran’s nuclear program could ignite World War III; reminiscent of Cheney’s 2002 rhetoric to show why Iraq needed invading that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger to make a nuclear WMD. Bush and Cheney also scoffed at intelligence reports that cast major doubt on these allegations. Bush still rejects the conclusion that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons production. (He also rejects evolution.)

By making this NIE public, the CIA further weakened Bush’s already damaged credibility. He no longer intimidates and stands exposed as a fraud.

The CIA informed Bush in August of its benign findings, but he shrugged off the facts and continued to insist on war as his answer to a non-existent threat. So, McConnell released the report which, for Bush compares with his twins making the centerfold of Playboy–on the humiliation scale.

The intelligence community sucker punched Great Intimidator — in public. Their NIE averred implicitly that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hated Holocaust denier and only remaining axis of evil personage, had told the truth about Iran not developing nuclear weapons. Conversely, Bush and Cheney, leaders of the World Alliance for God and Good (WAGG) prevaricated through their proverbial teeth.

The NIE derailed the White House policy of bombing of Iran and led to a prolonged scream from neo con heavies like Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy. They now bleat on TV about “treason” in high places (CIA) and the nation’s desperate need to bomb Iran immediately.

Douglas Feith, Bush’s former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until he resigned in August, 2005 spoke to the American Enterprise Institue in Washington in December and defended his own failed policies in Iraq. Some neo cons demand a “Team B” report to invalidate the NIE, an equivalent of former CIA Chief William Casey’s ploy to resurrect the Soviet threat.

In 1980, after US intelligence concluded the USSR posed less of a threat to the West than in previous decades, Casey handpicked another team of “experts” who predictably found the declining Soviet Union more dangerous than ever. Team B thgus backed Reagan’s aggressive posture to build more missiles and a Star Wars defense.

Bush and Cheney, like Reagan and Casey, disregard their intelligence services ­ for which taxpayers pay $40 billion per year — and instead relied on Israel’s Mossad, whose spies rejected the CIA findings. Israeli intelligence clings to its claim that Iran will soon build a nuke.

For Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak publicizing the NIE report meant a “blow to the groin” of Israel. (Truth is a kick in the balls? Bombing is good for Israeli manhood?) Will Bush now secretly encourage Israel to use some its own nuclear stockpile to launch a “preemptive strike” against Iran?

For Bush, good nations behave obediently. England and now France, for example, should possess nuclear weapons. Sort-of-good Pakistan still rates approval (obedient by mouth, which is good enough); and of course, beloved Israel ­ with 200 or more nukes.

Iran, the only remaining member of Bush’s “axis of evil,” began punching the United States in the fist with its face in 1953 when Iranians brazenly elected a democratic government. The CIA and their British equivalent in the name of anti-communism and in the interest of the oil companies overthrew that government and set up a puppet Shah, who ruled despotically until 1979 when militant Muslims dumped him and established a theocracy. In 1980, Iranian militants held CIA and other US officials hostage for more than a year ­thus humiliating numero uno.

The President and most presidential aspirants follow the U.S. axiom. To keep its status, Washington without casus belli invades and occupies other countries. Those who dare challenge such blatantly illegal behavior now become Islamofascists.

Acting in the Lord’s name, US presidents took revenge for Iran’s insolent behavior. After failing to revive the Shah’s rule, the US backed the now hated but then useful Saddam Hussein who dutifully, and with US aid, invaded Iran in 1980.

After almost a decade of Iraq-Iran slaughter, the United States punished Iran with sanctions ­ while covertly selling it missiles to support anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua.

9/11 allowed Bush to declare a permanent and perpetual war against terrorism, thus undermining traditional foreign policy methods for unabashed aggression. His neo con advisers usurped power from the traditional Establishment, much as Nixon did with his California outsiders. The neo cons invaded the intelligence apparatus, much as Nixon’s Plumbers assumed FBI and CIA tasks. (Plumbers sealed “leaks” — to the press.) CREEP (Committee and Finance Committee to Re-elect the President) allowed Nixon his own private budget as well as a White House intelligence and police operation. Such behavior made the traditional agency heads seriously pissed off.

Bush and Cheney’s war-loving intellectuals like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Feith manipulated intelligence in order to use 9/11 to generate fear. They pushed the country into war with Iraq ­ which had nothing to do with 9/11. Even after the invasion turned sour, the neo cons pursued their plan to attack Iran. Now discredited, these men writhe from the NIE’s kick to their cerebral groins.

The repercussions from the revelation will play out in Europe as well. Bush’s plan to place missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic as a defensive shield against Iran’s “nuclear threat” has drawn the ire of Russian President Putin. Russia’s leader sees Bush repeating Truman and Churchill’s Cold War policies of 60 years ago, using a non-existent threat (Iran) as a pretext to militarily encircle Russia. In 1947, Truman declared the USSR an imminent threat to attack Western Europe while the Soviets still licked their wounds after losing more than 20 million people in World War II.

Repetition of history with a new metaphor! The groin kick ­ an intelligence report to the balls ­ should help abate the “hate Iran” fever that replaced the 2001-2003 “hate Iraq” zeal. The NIE revealed to the US public that Bush and Cheney were dangerous bullshitters who spread malicious lies about Iran. Previously, they had accused Teheran with providing Iraqi insurgents bombs to kill US military personnel, a line that remains in Bush’s verbal arsenal.

Sadly, presidential hopefuls from both Parties, excepting Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, still buy into the anti-Iran axiom. They agree with Bush that the United States should not permit other nations to help anti-US insurgents albeit Washington feels duty bound ­ by God? — to help pro-US insurgents fight bad countries, like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Sound like bullshit?

The imperial bullshit level has surpassed the feeble imaginations of Cheney, Bush and even the presidential candidates. It emanates from the $700 billon smelly military budget pile, passed by Congress even though no nation poses a threat.

The NIE served to discredit Bush, which reduces chances of an imminent war with Iran, but don’t fool yourself: it doesn’t change fundamental US policy.

Saul Landau writes a regular column for CounterPunch and progresoweekly.com. His new Counterpunch Press book is A BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD. His new film, WE DON’T PLAY GOLF HERE (on globalization in Mexico) won the VIDEOFEST 2007 Award for best activist video. The event was held in October at the Roxie Theater. The film is available through roundworldproductions@gmail.com.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Police State Amerikkka

Police Brutality Cases Rise Sharply
By Kevin Johnson,USA Today, Posted: 2007-12-18 13:15:56

(Dec. 18) – Federal prosecutors are targeting a rising number of law enforcement officers for alleged brutality, Justice Department statistics show. The heightened prosecutions come as the nation’s largest police union fears that agencies are dropping standards to fill thousands of vacancies and “scrimping” on training.

Cases in which police, prison guards and other law enforcement authorities have used excessive force or other tactics to violate victims’ civil rights have increased 25% (281 vs. 224) from fiscal years 2001 to 2007 over the previous seven years, the department says.

During the same period, the department says it won 53% more convictions (391 vs. 256). Some cases result in multiple convictions.

Federal records show the vast majority of police brutality cases referred by investigators are not prosecuted.

University of Toledo law professor David Harris, who analyzes police conduct issues, says it will take time to determine whether the cases represent a sustained period of more aggressive prosecutions or the beginnings of a surge in misconduct.

The cases involve only a fraction of the estimated 800,000 police in the USA, says James Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the nation’s largest police union.

Even so, he says, the FOP is concerned that reduced standards, training and promotion of less experienced officers into the higher police ranks could undermine more rigid supervision.

“These are things we are worried about,” Pasco says.

Read the rest here.

Here’s the reason for the above phenomenon:

Police State America: A Look Back And Ahead
By Stephen Lendman

12/18/07 “ICH” — – Year end is a good time to look back and reflect on what’s ahead. If past is prologue, however, the outlook isn’t good, and nothing on the horizon suggests otherwise. Voters last November wanted change but got betrayal from the bipartisan criminal class in Washington. Their attitude shows in an October Reuters/Zogby (RZ) opinion poll with George Bush at 24% that tops Richard Nixon’s worst showing of 25% at his lowest 1974 Watergate point. And if that looks bad, consider Congress with “The Hill” reporting from the same RZ Index that our legislators scored a “staggering 11%, the lowest (congressional) rating in history,” but there’s room yet to hit bottom and a year left to do it. Why not with lawmakers’ consistent voter sellout and failure record that keeps getting worse.

It’s been that way ever since 9/11 with both sides of the aisle complicit with the administration. This article looks back at the record, and year end is a good time to review it. It’s hard imagining another as bad with a President defiling the law and once telling Republican colleagues the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper.”

He didn’t just say it. He governs by it, gets away with it, and former Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, says “a coup has occurred (with another to come from) the next 9/11….that completes the first (that’s) seen a steady assault on every fundamental (aspect) of our Constitution (to create) an executive government (to) rule by decree” no different from a police state.

Author Naomi Wolf spells it out in her April, 2007 Guardian article – “Fascist America, In 10 Easy Steps.” In it, she argues the Bush administration is following the same script any “would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms,” and she lists them. They range from “invoking a terrifying internal and external enemy” to “creat(ing) a gulag” to spying on everyone to harassing opposition to controlling the media to calling dissent treason to “suspend(ing) the rule of law.” She also notes how much “simpler” it is to shut down democracy than “to create and sustain” it, and that’s today’s threat.

It’s not with jackboots in the streets but by a steady “process of erosion” with the public largely unaware and distracted by media mind manipulators. It’s happening today, and Wolf sounds the alarm with the words of James Madison saying “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands….is the definition of tyranny,” and that’s the condition now in America. This article reviews the record for the past seven years. It’s not pretty.

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, (unlike every Pope in memory) condemned it in a wide-ranging UK Muslim magazine interview. It was quoted in a November 25 Sunday Times column headlined “US is ‘worst’ imperialist” and wields its power more reprehensibly than Britain ever did in its heyday. He explained that American overseas adventurism led to “the worst of all worlds” and expressed pessimism about the current state of western civilization and Washington’s own misguided sense of mission.

He critiqued the “war on terror” and stated America lost the moral high ground post-9/11 and needs to launch a “generous and intelligent programme of aid to the (nations it) ravaged;….check (its) economic exploitation of defeated territories” and demilitarize them. He called the West fundamentally adrift and our “definition of humanity (isn’t) working.” He denounced America’s violence and belief it can solve problems left for “other people (to clean up and) put….back together – Iraq, for example.” Another is the condition at home.

Since taking office in January, 2001, George Bush signed a blizzard of Executive Orders and attached dozens of “signing statements” to hundreds of law provisions even though nothing in the Constitution allows this practice, and the Supreme Court banned line-item vetos. He continues to do it while Congress and the courts condone his claiming unconstitutional “unitary executive” authority to ignore the law and do as he pleases in the name of “national security” on his say alone.

It began on 9/11 when George Bush addressed the nation and declared a “war on terrorism,” asked for world support to win it, and began what became “our government’s emergency (preventive war strategy) response plans.” The scheme was to ignore the law, go to war, and destroy our civil liberties to keep us safe from “rogue states, ‘bad guys,’ and evil-doers” throughout an “arc of instability” from the South American Andean region (mainly Colombia) to North Africa through the Middle East to the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia. Congress as well acted right out of the box with two audacious resolutions that surrendered its authority to the executive, allowed him to proceed, and signaled what would come.

The first one came September 18, 2001 in a joint “House-Senate Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)” that authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” A second followed in the October, 2002 “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,” and the rest is history. This article reviews other key congressional legislation to the present along with George Bush’s blatant abuse of presidential power.

His first action came November 13, 2001 when he issued Military Order Number 1 that one analyst called a “coup d’etat,” and “watershed moment in (the) country,” that was a hint of what would follow. This order violated the spirit and letter of a civil society under constitutional law with a firewall separating it from the military. No longer, and it got worse later on when its provisions resurfaced by act of Congress. That’s discussed below. First, Military Order Number 1 and what’s in it:

— it let the President usurp authority to capture, kidnap or otherwise arrest any non-citizens (and later citizens as well) anywhere in the world if he claims they’re involved in international terrorism and to hold them indefinitely without charge, evidence or allowing them due process in a court of law.

— however, IF trials are allowed, they would be by special ad hoc “military commissions,” not civil courts and in secret, with evidence obtained by torture allowed, those found guilty given no right of appeal, and they can be secretly executed.

— no civil court has authority in these cases even if victims are identified and legal counsel wishes to represent them.

Few knew then that on November 13, 2001 US citizens lost their civil liberties, but that would come out later on. It’s still ongoing with Congress and the courts complicit in the willful destruction of our democracy that was already on life support. Today, it’s gone.

Use of National Security ((NSPDs) and Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs)

In the Bush administration, NSPDs replaced the Presidential Decision and Review Directives under Bill Clinton and others under different names since the Kennedy administration began the practice. Earlier ones remain in force unless superseded. They’re much like Executive Orders (EOs) with the “full force and effect of law,” relate to national security, and for that reason remain classified unless or until made public. In seven years, George Bush issued dozens of NSPD’s that are too many to review as well as over 20 Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs). A few key ones are discussed below.

The October 25, 2001 NSPD-9 deserves special note and was titled “Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States.” On March 23, 2004, Donald Rumsfeld gave this explanation of its classified contents to the 9/11 Commission:

— “To eliminate the Al Queda network;

— To use all elements of national power to do so — diplomatic, military, economic, intelligence, information and law enforcement;

— To eliminate sanctuaries for Al Queda and related terrorist networks — and if diplomatic efforts to do so failed, to consider additional measures.”

On April 1, 2004, the White House released this statement on the directive:

The NSPD called on the Secretary of Defense to plan for military options “against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics (along with similar efforts) against Al Queda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan.”

Here’s the problem. The administration adopted these measures on September 4, 2001, seven days before 9/11. George Bush then signed them into binding law in NSPD-9 on October 25, 2001 to conceal when they originated.

Other important NSPDs relate to:

— combatting WMDs;

— developing and deploying an anti-ballistic missile defense that’s for offense, not defense;

— biodefense;

— deploying nuclear weapons and domestic nuclear detection;

— the Iraq war;

— a national space policy as part of the goal for “full spectrum dominance” over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems to deter any domestic or foreign threat or challenge to our global hegemony; and,

There’s one other crucially important combined NSPD-HSPD:

NSPD-51/HSPD-20 on April 4, 2007 – National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

This is a combined directive from the White House and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish “Continuity of Government (COG)” procedures under a “Castastrophic Emergency” defined as follows:

“any incident (such as a terrorist attack), regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

COG is then defined as:

”a coordinated effort within the Federal Government’s executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency.”

Crucial to understand is that this combined directive gives the President and DHS unprecendented powers free from constitutional constraints. Under NSPD-51, the President can declare a “national emergency” and declare martial law without congressional approval. It allows him to create a de facto militarized police state with him as dictator and DHS as a national Gestapo to an even greater degree than it is already. It also empowers the Vice-President to implement the directives’ provisions as part of the “Continuity of Government” plan that in the case of Dick Cheney gives him even more power than George Bush the way this administration operates. This combined directive alone is the face of “police state America” in real time if it’s implemented, and it wasn’t likely enacted as window dressing. But there’s lots more besides.

Other HSPDs relate to:

— combatting “immigrant terrorism;”

— a national response plan to domestic incidents;

— critical infrastructure identification, prioritization, and protection;

— national preparedness;

— comprehensive terrorist-related screening procedures;

— domestic nuclear detection; and others.

Congressional Legislation After 9/11

Post-9/11, Congress acted in lockstep with the President and continues to pass laws any despot would love. Written, on the shelf, and ready to go long before 9/11, the USA Patriot Act was passed and signed by the president 45 days later on October 26, 2001. The legislative process capitalized on a window of hysteria to grant unchecked powers to the executive but created three grave civil liberties threats in the process:

— the erosion of Fifth and Fourteen Amendment due process rights by permitting indefinite detentions of undocumented immigrants that can now apply to anyone anywhere in the world; more on that below;

— the First Amendment loss of freedom of association that the Supreme Court considers an essential part of free expression; now anyone may be charged and prosecuted because of his or her claimed association with an “undesirable group;” and

— loss of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and as a consequence, the loss of privacy; the Act grants the administration unchecked surveillance powers to access personal records; monitor financial transactions; student records; conduct “sneak and peak” searches through “delayed notice” warrants; authorize roving wiretaps; track emails, internet and cell phone use; use secret evidence in prosecutions; deny immigrants the right to counsel if they’re unable to get their own; and ends built-in safeguards to let domestic criminal and foreign intelligence operations share information so CIA can now spy domestically.

The Act also creates the federal crime of “domestic terrorism” that broadens the definition and applies to US citizens as well as aliens. It states criminal law violations are considered domestic terrorist acts if they aim to “influence (government policy) by intimidation or coercion (or) intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” By this definition, anti-war or global justice demonstrations, environmental activism, civil disobedience and dissent of any kind may be called “domestic terrorism.” The Patriot Act was just for starters. Much more was ahead with a bipartisan Congress acting like a gift that keeps on giving and the President loving it.

The Homeland Security Act (HSA) of November 25, 2002 followed as a sweeping new anti-terrorism bill, and like the Patriot Act, was planned long before 9/11. It created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by combining previously separate government agencies under this new authority to prepare for, prevent and respond to domestic emergencies and give the federal government broad new powers to protect the nation within and outside our borders. In March, 2003, its largest investigative and enforcement arm was then established – the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). It was charged with protecting public safety by identifying and targeting “criminal” and “terrorist” threats to the country who in most cases are NAFTA and globalized trade victims here out of need, not choice, and who aren’t terrorists.

DHS is part of the administration’s plan to centralize unprecedented military and law enforcement power in the executive branch that aims for greater global dominance – to rule the world unchallenged including repressively at home by suppressing civil liberties in the name of “national security.” DHS and USA Patriot Act are two frightening measures to do it.

DHS is insidious. It encroaches on local authority by “mandat(ing) federal supervision, funding, and coordination of ‘local first responders.’ ” This refers to police and “emergency personnel” comprising local law enforcement. The Homeland Security Act (HSA) doesn’t mandate local control. Instead, it provides coordination and guidance as a first step measure with more to come. That’s why US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was established in October, 2002 as an unprecedented move to militarize the mainland plus Alaska, Canada, Mexico, Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida and, for the first time ever, allow troops to be deployed on US streets to counter drugs, an “insurrection” loosely defined, and combat crimes with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. In other words, the President may now deploy military forces on US streets in the interest of “national security.” This power is unprecedented and dangerous.

So is another affecting everyone. It’s largely below the radar since it was was scheduled to be fully operational in late September, 2006. It’s the Pentagon’s New Offensive Strike Plan called the Joint Functional Component Command for Global Strike and Integration – or simply Global Strike Command. It grew out of the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that was updated more belligerently in early 2006. NPR is a declaration of preventive war on any nation, group or force anywhere on earth the administration calls a “national security” threat and could be used by NORTHCOM against US-based targets along with a HSA crackdown if martial law is declared.

HSA goes further still by creating a sweeping domestic intelligence agency called the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. It’s to create and maintain an all-inclusive intrusive public and private information data base on everyone. It can include virtually everything – financial transactions and records, medical ones, emails, phone calls, purchases, books and publications read, organization memberships, and any other personal habit or pattern.

USA Patriot Act and HSA end the distinction between foreign and domestic intelligence gathering and, up to now, the sacrosanct firewall between them. They also no longer allow “critical infrastructure information” from a federal agency to be disclosed through a FOIA request as part of an official policy of secrecy characteristic of police states. There’s much more in both Acts as well that’s frightening, dangerous and unknown to the public. In sum, they end constitutional protections whenever the executive suspends the law in the name of “national security.” That’s how “police state America” works that’s hidden from public view.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005

Torture is official state policy for the Bush administration as its preferred means of intimidation, retribution and social control. The McCain Detainee (anti-torture) Amendment in October, 2005 was a futile effort to deter it. It was passed and weakened by the Graham-Levin Amendment, became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and was attached to the 2006 Defense Department’s Appropriations Act. George Bush signed the legislation after which he gutted its provisions relating to detainees in one of his notorious “signing statements.” Its language gave himself the right (irrespective of the law) to “protect the American people from further terrorist attacks” using all his self-given powers as a “unitary executive” that places him above the law, Congress, the courts, the people, and world public opinion.

The legislation’s final form went further as well. It denied detainees habeas rights, let US forces use any cruel, abusive, inhumane or degrading treatment in the interests of “national security,” prohibited detainees from bringing suits as a result, and allowed statements gotten coercively to be used as evidence against them. It also followed previous policies as far back as September 17, 2001 when George Bush signed a secret “finding” authorizing CIA to kill, capture and detain “Al Qaeda” members anywhere in the world, rendition them to black site torture-prisons for interrogation, and obtain it by any means. From then to now, torture and abuse of anyone have been standard operating procedures for the Bush administration with complicity from Congress and the courts.

Other Repressive Legislation and More

The 107th, 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses will be remembered for likely having done more than all others before them to defile the rule of law and our constitutional protections. They conspired with a rogue administration, wrecked the republic, and for the 109th Congress, October 17, 2006 stands out shamelessly as a day that will live in infamy.

The Military Commissions Act

In a White House ceremony, George Bush signed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) now known as “the torture authorization act,” but it’s more far-reaching than that. It grants the administration extraordinary unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute alleged terror suspects and anyone claimed to be their supporters. It also lets the President call anyone anywhere in the world an “unlawful enemy combatant” and empowers him to arrest and incarcerate those accused indefinitely in military prisons without needing corroborating evidence proving guilt. The law states for persons detained that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever…. relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission….including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”

MCA further scraps habeas protection (dating back to 1215 in the Magna Carta) for domestic and foreign enemies of the state, citizens and non-citizens alike, and says “Any person is punishable… who….aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures” and in so doing helps a foreign enemy, provides “material support” to alleged terrorist groups, engages in spying, or commits other offenses previously handled in civil courts.

Other key elements of the act include:

— legalizing torture against anyone and lets the President decide what procedures can be used on his own authority;

— denying detainees international law protection and lets the executive interpret it;

— empowering the President to convene “military commissions” to try anyone he designates an “unlawful enemy combatant,” and hold them in secret detention indefinitely;

–denying speedy trials or any at all;

— allowing evidence obtained by torture or coerced testimony to be used against detainees in trial proceedings;

— permitting hearsay and secret evidence to be used; and

— denying due process, destroying human dignity, mocking the rule of law, and establishing the principle of kangaroo court justice for anyone the executive targets.

Revising the 1807 Insurrection Act and Ending 1878 Posse Comitatus Protection

Also on October 17, 2006, the president privately signed into law a hidden provision in Sections 1076 and 333 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. It amended the Insurrection Act of 1807 and Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that prohibit using federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement inside the country except as constitutionally allowed or expressly authorized by Congress in times of a national emergency like an insurrection. The executive can now claim a public emergency, effectively declare martial law, suspend the Constitution for “national security,” and deploy federal and National Guard troops on the nation’s streets to suppress whatever he calls disorder. That means First Amendment-guaranteed peaceful public demonstrations and all organized acts of dissent are no longer constitutionally protected. Neither is the republic in “police state America.”

The new law also authorizes the Pentagon to transfer state-of-the-art crowd control weapons and technology to state and local responders. It’s to militarize them and blur the distinction between federal and local law enforcement agencies as an operational police state tactic.

The Real ID Act of 2005

Congress passed the Act that threatens personal privacy, it’s scheduled to become effective in May, 2008, and it will require states to meet federal ID standards if in takes effect next spring. That’s now in question as two dozen or more states passed laws prohibiting its use and refused to fund it.

The federal law mandates that every US citizen and legal resident have a national identity card that in most cases will be a driver’s license. It requires that it contain an individual’s personal information and means this ID will be needed to open a bank account, board an airplane, be able to vote, or conduct virtually any other essential type business.

In the future, the law may also require that the card contain a radio frequency identification (RFID) technology computer chip that will be able to track all movements, activities and transactions of everyone, everywhere, at all times. In other words, with this technology embedded, the card will become an empowered police state dream (and an Orwellian nightmare) to be able to monitor everyone having one all the time wherever they are.

However, growing state opposition to the law puts its status in doubt. It’s because it’s costly to establish and administer and will create a bureaucratic nightmare besides. It thus looks likely it won’t be adopted in its current form, but it may be revised and reintroduced, so don’t yet count this one out as some are ready to do. As of now, measures have been introduced in the House and Senate to repeal it by adopting national ID standards in other legislation and increase federal funding for it. So going forward, the issue of mandating national ID measures is very much alive. It looks like something on it will emerge as federal law going forward, but the cure may be worse than the disease if states adopt it to give “police state America” another repressive tool.

Pervasive Spying on Americans

Under George Bush, spying is a national pastime, but it’s no joke. The New York Times reported on December 16, 2005 that his administration had been secretly spying on Americans without warrants since late 2001. He authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept international communications of US citizens with known links to Al Queda, related “terrorist” organizations, or for any other reasons at its discretion. The operation was called the “Terrorism Surveillance Program.”

It made no difference to the administration that wiretapping without probable cause or judicial oversight violates Fourth Amendment protections and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In the current atmosphere, the rule of law is out the window, Congress and the courts condone it, and that’s the problem.

It surfaced again when Congress passed the Protect America Act of 2007 that amends FISA with doublespeak language Orwell would love. It supposedly aims to close “communication gaps” but will allow virtual unrestricted mass data-mining monitoring and intercept of domestic and foreign internet, cell phones and other new technology as well as transit international phone call traffic and emails. The Act claims to restrict surveillance to foreign nationals “reasonably believed to be outside the United States” and must be renewed. In fact, the law targets everyone including US citizens inside the country if the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence claim they pose a potential terrorist or “national security” threat, but no evidence is needed to prove it.

This law allows virtual unrestricted warrantless spying of anyone for any claimed “national security” reason. It thus renders the notion of illegal searches and privacy rights null and void. But that already went on earlier post-9/11 through other unconstitutional speech-related monitoring activities. One was the short-lived Operation TIPS that was dropped when civilian informers refused to be spies. Then, there was the Pentagon’s Total Information Awareness (TIA), later renamed Terrorism Information Awareness, that was also ended under pressure but resurfaced in new form so illegal military spying continues. The Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) program was part of it to collect domestic intelligence through a huge database focused on “terrorism” that means everyone legally opposing Bush administration practices is targeted.

MATRIX is another new data mining tool that stands for the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Exchange Program. It violates our privacy by mass monitoring the lives and activities of ordinary people on the pretext of learning whether they may be engaging in any type terrorist or criminal activity.

Privacy isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, but Supreme Court decisions affirmed it as a fundamental human right. In addition, it’s protected under the Ninth Amendment, the Third prohibiting quartering troops in homes, the Fourth prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth safeguarding against self-incrimination. MATRIX and other intrusive laws violate the letter and spirit of the law and permits Patriot and HSA justice in “police state America.”

Executive Orders Issued by George Bush

George Bush loves big numbers. They show up in budgets and spending, in his number of signing statements to congressional legislation, and in over 250 Executive Orders (EOs) in almost seven years. A key one is reviewed below.

July 17, 2007 Executive Order (EO): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

The US Constitution has no provision that gives a President power to make new law through one-man executive order decrees. That never deterred others in the past from issuing them, but none ever abused this practice more than George Bush who’s issued over 250 of them thus far with more sure to come.

This one on July 17 is especially egregious but right in character for a President who disdains the law and shows it. It starts off: The President’s power stems from “the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America” as well as the International Economic Powers Act he also invokes.

The order continues: “….due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people,” George Bush, in fact, unconstitutionally usurped authority to criminalize the anti-war movement, make the First Amendment right to protest it illegal, and empower himself to seize the assets of persons violating this decree.

By this action, the President again, on his own authority, violated the Constitution, criminalized dissent, and moved the nation another step closer to tyranny in “police state America.”

Secrecy As Policy under George Bush

In November 1, 2001, George Bush signed Executive Order 13233: Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act. In so doing, he established an official administration policy of secrecy in violation of the 1978 Presidential Records Act, the 1974 Freedom of Information Act, and James Madison’s 1822 warning that “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both.” He also violated the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services that ruled “executive privilege” is subject to “erosion over time” after a president leaves office, and Congress decided that little or none of an executive’s communications with his advisors should remain secret after 12 years.

Secrecy threatens democracy because it avoids accountability and empowers an imperial president way beyond issues of national security that are justifiable. On his own authority, George Bush placed limits on presidential records, the Freedom of Information Act, and a free and open society by giving himself the power to classify information for national security and create a whole new array of categories called “sensitive” information that includes anything he so designates. The result is that classified information doubled since 2001 and efforts to declassify material was stopped by invoking the “State Secrets” privilege to avoid court challenge. These actions characterize police states and represent another threat to a free and open society under an administration that disdains the law and operates freely without constraint.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA)

On November 27, 2006, George Bush signed AETA into law to amend the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992. The new Act has broad and vague language to criminalize First Amendment activities advocating for animal rights like peaceful protests, leafleting, undercover investigations, whisleblowing and boycotts. It shows how out of hand things have gotten with animal protection advocacy now a crime.

Under the old law, anyone convicted of a physical disruption causing $10,000 in damages to an animal enterprise was subject to a $10,000 fine or 10 years to life imprisonment. The new AETA is even harsher with penalties far exceeding comparable offenses under other laws. It expands the original Act by changing activity “for the purpose of causing physical disruption” to actions “for the purpose of damaging or disrupting” an animal enterprise. In this case, “disruptive” means any activity that results in “losses and increased losses” over $10,000 by peaceful protests for consumers boycotts, advocating harmful practice reforms, or a whisleblower doing the same things.

The Act also goes further. It allows for expanded surveillance of animal rights organizations to include criminal wiretapping and makes it easier for a court to find probable cause for the vague crime of economic damage or disruption than for one requiring hard evidence a person or group plans to commit these acts.

The bill exempts “lawful public, governmental or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise,” but that provision only applies to economic disruption claims, not damage and makes it hard to distinguish between the two. In addition, AETA:

— expands the kinds of facilities covered by adding ones that use or sell animals or animal products;

— it covers any person, entity or organization with a connection to an animal enterprise;

— it applies to any form of advocacy;

— it criminalizes threatening conduct and protected speech as well as communication with individuals who engage in these practices; and

— it potentially includes any form of communication such as emailing across state lines to boycott abusive animal activities;

— it protects corporate animal abusers with a vested interest in silencing dissent; and

— it effectively singles out any form of civil disobedience or protest activity and brands animal advocates as terrorists even when nothing they do causes physical harm; even worse, the bill’s language is so broad and vague it’s hard to know the difference between legal and illegal behavior; this Act is another nail in the coffin of free expression, the rule of law in a free society, and the right of everyone to be protected by law, not targeted by it.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1955)

The House overwhelmingly passed this measure on October 23 that some observers call “the thought crime prevention bill.” It’s now in the Senate (S 1959) where if passed and signed by George Bush will establish a commission and Center for Excellence to study and take action against “thought criminals.” The commission will be empowered to subpoena and investigate anyone that will automatically create a perception of guilt that may be highlighted in the media for added emphasis.

This Act is a direct assault on democratic freedoms in the current atmosphere with both parties and a President determined to end them. The bill’s language hides its possible intent as “violent radicalization” and “homegrown terrorism” may be whatever the administration says they are. “Violent radicalization” is defined as “adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change.” “Homegrown terrorism” is used to mean “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 (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population….or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives.”

This and other repressive laws may be used against any individual or group with unpopular views – those that differ from established state policy, even illegal ones, and historian Howard Zinn is concerned. He says: “This is the most recent of a long series of laws passed in times of foreign policy tensions, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which sent people to jail for criticizing the Adams administration.” Under Woodrow Wilson in WW I, “the Espionage (and) Sedition Act(s) (jailed) close to a thousand people (who spoke) out against the war.” From HR 1955 and other post-9/11 laws, authorities now have the same power to target anti-war protesters or anyone expressing views this Act alone calls “terrorist-related propaganda.” Persons charged and convicted face stiff penalties in an effort to deter others. This measure is still another step toward full-blown tyranny in “police state America.”

Sections 1615 and 1622 of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act

These provisions authorize DOD to militarize the country under martial law by merging the military with state and local law enforcement during a national emergency described as “an incident of national significance or a catastrophic incident.” It also gives the Defense Secretary extraordinary power to determine what military capabilities are needed, to provide them to “active (and) reserve components of the armed forces for homeland defense missions, domestic emergency responses, and (to provide) military support to civil authorities (for) at least five years.”

The Act designates the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman to review NORTHCOM civilian, reservist and military positions and increase their number in preparation for a potential catastrophic event requiring “homeland defense missions, domestic emergency response, (and the need for) military support to civil authorities.”

Section 1622 then establishes a Council of Governors to advise the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security and the White House “on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.”

The Act is more proof of “police state America.” It establishes a martial law apparatus to be used in case of a “catastrophic event” of any kind and empowers the President or Vice-President under NSPD-51 to implement it in a “national emergency” without congressional approval.

Operation FALCON – Police State America in Real Time

Mike Whitney won a 2008 Project Censored Award for his February, 2007 article titled “Operation FALCON and the Looming Police State.” In it, he reported that the Bush administration “carried out three massive sweeps in the last two years, rolling up more than 30,000 minor crooks and criminals” that he calls a “blueprint for removing dissidents and political rivals” reminiscent of Nazi Germany or any other repressive police state. Those chickens now reside at home, but the public is largely unaware and unconcerned. We all should be as Whitney raises a “red flag for anyone who cares at all about human rights, civil liberties, or simply saving his own skin.”

Operation FALCON stands for “Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally” and came out of the Bush Justice Department and right-wing think tanks “where fantasies of autocratic government have a long history” and are now playing out in real time. The scheme centralizes power in Washington and uses resources of local authorities for its own purposes.

Whitney traces its short history starting in the week of April 4 – 10, 2005 when over 10,000 criminal suspects were arrested in “the largest criminal sweep in the nation’s history” in a “single initiative.” Its aim was “quantity,” not “quality,” but Whitney asked why did the Feds get involved in local police work and suggested something more sinister was involved “than just ensuring public safety.” His answer – “to enhance the powers of the ‘unitary’ executive” by giving Washington power over local law enforcement, and that makes perfect sense under an administration obsessed with wanting unchallengeable control.

Operation FALCON II followed a week later from April 17 – 23 and swept up another 9037 “alleged fugitives.” The final FALCON III came from October 22 – 28, 2006 with 10,773 more arrests. Each sweep was the same and concentrated on alleged criminal types out of character for a federal operation, so clearly another motive was involved. Further, no one arrested was charged with a terrorist-related crime, and that alone looks fishy. Whitney thought so and called FALCON “new drills for a new world order” that’s waging permanent war, defiles the law, ignores checks and balances, condones torture, repealed habeas, and illegally spies on everyone.

Muslim and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) Sweeps

As FALCON targeted petty crooks and criminals, Muslims are the administration’s main “war on terrorism” victims. Post-9/11, thousands were mercilessly harassed and persecuted through mass witch-hunt roundups, detentions, prosecutions and deportations. Their assets were frozen, and legal immigrants among them were subjected to secret federal immigration court status hearings where those found guilty of minor past infractions were illegally held or returned to their countries of origin where they faced possible arrest and torture.

Others fared even worse and became political prisoners. Professor Sami Al-Arian was one of them because of his faith, beliefs and activism. Palestinian refugee, scholar, academic, community leader, civic activist, and freedom and justice advocate for his people made him a Bush administration target. His ordeal began when he was arrested in February, 2003 and unjustly charged with supporting terrorism, conspiracy to commit murder, racketeering, giving material support to an outlawed group, extortion, perjury and other offenses proved spurious in his subsequent trial in which he was exonerated. Yet he remains imprisoned under harsh conditions as the Bush Justice Department finds ways to hold him.

Another victim was Dr. Rafil Dhafir, a Muslim American of Iraqi descent and practicing oncologist until his license was suspended. He was convicted in a shameless kangaroo court trial of 59 of 60 trumped up charges of violating the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations (IEEPA) for using his own funds and what he could raise through his Help the Needy charity to bring desperately needed essential to life humanitarian aid to Iraqis under sanctions. He’s now serving a 22 year sentence in a special Terre Haute, IN “Communications Management Unit” (CMU) for Muslims and Arabs for his “crime of compassion” (see dhafirtrial.net, Katherine Hughes) where he, like Sami Al-Arian, is a Bush administration “trophy” prisoner in the “war on terrorism.”

Undocumented Latino immigrants have also been targeted with ICE shock troops mandated to do it. The agency was established in March, 2003 as the largest DHS investigative and enforcement arm and charged with protecting the public safety by identifying and targeting “criminal” and “terrorist” threats to the country. In most cases, they’re innocent victims of NAFTA and globalized trade coming north to survive. ICE heads them off at the border, hunts them down ruthlessly once they’re here, and boasts how well their multi-billion dollar budget lets them conduct a reign of terror against vulnerable people.

Workplace assaults continue, and on October 3, ICE said it swept up and deported (or will deport) more than 1300 “criminal aliens, immigrations fugitives, and immigration violators” in the “largest-ever” operation of its kind in the Los Angeles area. Most were Mexican nationals, but some were from 30 other countries, and ICE called them “immigration violators.” They’re Bush administration targets in its “war on terrorism” that soon may come for us.

Police State America Preparations

Today, dissent is an endangered species, and preparations are underway for mass detentions in the “war on terrorism” targeting anyone seen as a threat. Halliburton is the beneficiary with a DHS contingency contract worth nearly $400 million to build US-based camps for “detention and processing” in case of an “emergency influx of immigrants….or to support the rapid development of new programs (for planned) expansion facilities (for anyone with capacity for 5000 or more persons).”

This language is cover for planned US-based concentration camps for anyone labeled an enemy of the state or threat to “national security.” The plan is clear – to have facilities in place if martial law is declared with plenty of reasons to fear it’s coming. Why else these camps and why all the repressive laws, EOs, NSPDs, and HSPDs put in place if they weren’t for a purpose.

The Pentagon is also ready with a DOD action plan called “Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support.” It envisions an “active, layered defense” both within and outside the country that pledges to “transform US military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the….US homeland.” It lays out a strategy for increased reconnaissance and surveillance to “defeat potential challengers before they threaten the United States.” It also “maximizes threat awareness and seizes the initiative from those who would harm us.”

These are ominous developments that suggest a likely real or contrived homeland terror attack severe enough to warrant suspending the Constitution and declaring martial law with the public acquiescing out of fear. If it comes, anyone may be targeted as a “national security” threat, indefinitely detained in a camp, and no evidence is needed for proof. The state and military will be empowered by law to act preventively through mass roundups and detentions that appears the reason for three test-run FALCON operations.

Full-scale militarization of the country is already lawful under the 1988 Reagan administration’s “national security emergency” EO 12656. It was meant for “Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” “Police state America” has been in the works a long time, and it now may be near the boiling point.

The Role of Blackwater USA in Police State America

Most people know about Blackwater but not how it operates. We better learn because it’s coming to a neighborhood near you, and that means trouble. Author Jeremy Scahill wrote the book on the company he calls “the world’s most powerful mercenary army” and describes it as a “shadowy mercenary company (employing) some of the most feared professional killers in the world accustomed to operating without worry of legal consequences (and) largely off the congressional radar.” It has friends in high places who give it “remarkable power and protection within the US war apparatus” with unaccountable license to practice street violence with impunity to include cold-blooded murder wherever their paramilitaries are deployed.

For now, that’s mostly abroad, and controversy surfaced about the company after its mercenaries killed two dozen or more Iraqis and wounded dozens more in al-Nisour on September 16. It was the latest incident involving a company with a disturbing history of unprovoked violence and then claiming self-defense. Blackwater is contracted to provide security services for US diplomats, officials and others that once was assigned to the military at one-sixth or less what the company charges under an administration that believes anything government can do private business does better, so let it whatever the cost.

Using Blackwater and other paramilitaries is part of the scheme to militarize America, and New Orleans is its first test case. Scahill wrote that “about 150 heavily armed Blackwater troops dressed in full battle gear” arrived in the Crescent City right after Katrina hit and spread out into the city’s chaos. Others came later. Their cover was to provide hurricane relief, but that was a ruse as local residents still around in the wrong places soon discovered. They patrolled like Gestapo in SUVs with tinted windows and their logo on the back. Others used unmarked cars with no license plates, and relief wasn’t their mandate. They came to secure neighborhoods from their legal residents and treat those wanting to return like criminals. They wore flak jackets, carried automatic weapons and had extra guns strapped to their legs. They weren’t for show.

Instead of helping hurricane victims, they came as vigilantes to terrorize them and be empowered by federal, state and local authorities to do it. Blackwater USA is the face of paramilitarism on US streets as the “war on terrorism” comes to a neighborhood near you with New Orleans the first test case to see if the company can operate here the way it does in Iraq and get away with it. It’s doing it.

More than two years after Katrina, New Orleans is still a disaster zone, and many thousands of its residents are still without homes. Instead of helping them rebuild and restore their lives, federal funds instead go to private mercenaries to protect the privileged from desperate people needing help. Blackwater is another element in place in “police state America” where the streets of Boston, Boise or Buffalo may one day resemble Baghdad and bring the “war on terror” to the homeland with chilling implications of what that means.

A Look Ahead in Police State America

This article began and will end with the same chilling thought. It past is prologue, the outlook isn’t good in “police state America” under neocon rule that won’t appreciably change when the White House has a new occupant in 2009. The nation is at war and laws are in place that end constitutional protections, militarize the country, repress dissent, and our government is empowered to crush freedom and defend privilege from beneficial social change it won’t tolerate. It’s the price of imperial arrogance we the people are paying, and that won’t end until the spirit of resistance gets aroused enough to stop it in our own self-defense. We better hope that happens in time with potentially little of it left.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US Central time.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Resistance As a Lifestyle – D. Hamilton

Resistance as a lifestyle.
By David Hamilton

You may have noticed that a whole series of anti-Iraq War movies was recently released. We saw the reviews, got a bit excited, saw “Rendition” and loved it, and then, before we had much chance to check out the others, they were gone. They came, they tanked and they went to foreign distribution and video, where the producers will have a better chance to at least cover their costs. These films included “Lions for Lambs” with Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, “Rendition” with Reese Witherspoon, “In the Valley of Elah” by the director of “Crash”, and Brian de Palma’s “Redacted”. Big stars, big productions, big directors and a big antiwar message equaled big flop at the box office. “Fred Claus” and “Enchanted” are, however, doing well. This prevalent avoidance and denial mentality may be analogous to the fascination with movies about rich people during the Great Depression. Meanwhile, large-scale antiwar militancy has largely disappeared, although next year’s Democratic and Republican party conventions may change that.

Paradoxically, these antiwar films’ failure to achieve commercial success occurred in a context where almost 70% of the American public willing to respond to pollsters, indicate that they consider the war to be a big mistake based on lies that we should extricate ourselves from at the first available opportunity. We are also in the midst of a presidential election campaign that has until recently centered on the Iraq war. Somehow, the antiwar forces won the argument in the arena of public opinion and it didn’t make any difference. How can we explain that?

When we go out to distribute “For Peace” yard signs, we try to situate ourselves in a compatible human environment, a “First Thursday” on South Congress for example. Unless the crowd is overtly political, however, such as at a demonstration, the overwhelmingly most common reaction we get from people is obliviousness, a vacant stare occasionally punctuated by chitchat. In this brave new world, there are an awful lot of pod-people who have been successfully transformed from citizen to consumer unit by the soma of corporate capitalist culture with its prevailing credo of he who dies with the most and biggest toys wins. That will probably be the case until the toy machine breaks down and fundamentally violates their conditioning.

So what is one to do when faced with a wall reaction ranging from indifference to hostility when outside our comfortable cult of the American Left? Leaving aside the issue of expatriation, one either resists or sinks into the muck, last seen wandering the back isles at some Wal-Mart. In accordance with the 60’s insight that all things are political, resistance to the now dominant zeitgeist should manifest itself in all aspects of our lives. Another 60’s insight was that militancy is in itself an effective organizing tool. Hence, we each should devote at least a small amount of our valuable resistance time to publicly bearing witness to the fact that another world and another consciousness are possible.

Resistance against numbing commercial and oppressive patriarchal mindsets becomes a life defining existential imperative. It becomes second nature and can be a continually enriching experience regardless of any direct evidence of its immediate impact on events in the larger world. Minimally, it creates a positive Karma that, in largely imperceptible ways, I have faith will eventually come around, both for ourselves and for our grand children.

Hope to catch up with you at the vigil Friday afternoon.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment