Archive for the ‘History’ Category

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance140.html

by Laurence M. Vance

Americans love their war heroes. It doesn’t matter where the war was fought, why it was fought, how it was fought, or what the war cost. Every battlefield is holy; every cause is just; every soldier is a potential hero. But what is it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero? Since it obviously depends on the criteria employed, is it possible that American war heroes are not heroes at all? Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead dupes?

Democrats who loathe John McCain because he is a Republican and Republicans who consider him to be a lukewarm conservative are united in their belief that, whatever his politics, McCain is a genuine war hero because he spent five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. But one does not have to be a prisoner of war to be considered a war hero. The Department of Defense maintains a website that highlights “the military men and women who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in the Global War on Terror.” Every soldier who died fighting in the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, is also considered to be a war hero.

After McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, he became a naval aviator. During the Vietnam War he rained down death and destruction on the people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions. After being shot down, he was imprisoned instead of receiving the death sentence his bombs delivered to the Vietnamese. So why is he considered a war hero? If he got what he deserved, there would be 58,257 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. instead of 58,256. Pilots like McCain who drop napalm from the safety of their cockpit are lauded as heroes by the government, the media, and Americans ignorant enough or gullible enough to swallow the myth that there can be heroism in the performance of evil. McCain was even well received by the Vietnamese government in 2000 when he traveled to Vietnam in pursuit of a bilateral trade agreement.

Begun in September of 2006, the DOD “Heroes’ Archive” contains the names of 116 U.S. soldiers who performed some heroic deed fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the four soldiers currently featured, two were awarded the Bronze Star, one was awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service Cross, and the fourth was awarded the Bronze Star, the NATO Medal, the Afghan Campaign Medal, and the Outstanding Service Medal. Now, unlike General Petraeus, at least these soldiers earned their metals during real combat. Yet, the fact remains, as Catholic Eastern Rite priest Charles McCarthy has recently stated, “Murder decorated with a ribbon is still murder.”

Both IraqWarHeroes.org and AfghanistanWarheroes.org are “dedicated to our deceased Heroes that have served in Iraq & Afghanistan.” The list of “deceased Heroes” contains the names of 4,591 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t know where these sites are getting their information from. The “Casualties in Iraq” page at Antiwar.com shows a total of 4,528 deaths. But regardless of the exact number, the point is that every soldier who died fighting in the war on terror is said to be a hero. It doesn’t matter if they were killed by enemy fire, roadside bombs, friendly fire, disease, accident, or carelessness – they are all heroes. But since the war in Iraq is senseless, immoral, and criminal does it really matter how these soldiers died? Again, I refer the reader to Father McCarthy:

Authentic heroism is freely taking a grave risk in order to try to do good.

Evil does not become a scintilla less evil because a person put his or her life in jeopardy to do it and is subsequently designated a hero.

This means that whatever we call U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, we should not call them heroes.

Some of these “heroes” are mercenaries. The “large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny” that our Founding Fathers protested against in the Declaration of Independence are now fighting for the United States in Iraq. Since 9/11, the United States has granted citizenship to over 32,000 foreign soldiers. All it takes now is one year of service in the military to be granted citizenship.

Many of these “heroes” are killers for hire. For them, the enlistment bonuses, the tuition assistance, the student loan repayment plans, the assignment incentive pay, the career training, the thirty days of vacation each year, the free medical and dental care, and the generous retirement benefits are enough to erase any concerns about the morality of traveling thousands of miles away from U.S. soil to kill people they have never met or seen, and that posed no threat to America or Americans.

Most of these “heroes,” however, are dupes. They think they are fighting for our freedoms when instead they are helping to destroy our freedoms. They think they are retaliating for 9/11 when instead they are paving the way for another terrorist attack. They think they are preventing terrorism when instead they are making terrorists. They think they went to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda when instead al-Qaeda came to Iraq because of them. They think they are protecting Israel when instead they are contributing to increased hatred of Israel. They think that our cause is just when instead it violates every just war principle ever formulated. They think they are fighting injustice when instead they are committing a crime against the Iraqi people. They think they are defending the United States when instead they are helping to destroy it.

One of the saddest cases of a duped hero is that of Marine Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski. He died fighting in Iraq on March 27 of last year while assigned to the Marine Forces Reserve’s Third Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment, Fourth Marine Division, in Nashville, Tennessee. He had been in the Marine Reserves for twelve years, and was thirty years old when he died.

About a week before he died, Golczynski sent home this e-mail:

I want all of you to be safe. And please don’t feel bad for us. We are warriors. And as warriors have done before us, we joined this organization and are following orders because we believe that what we are doing is right. Many of us have volunteered to do this a second time due to our deep desire to finish the job we started. We fight and sometimes die so that our families don’t have to. Stand beside us. Because we would do it for you. Because it is our unity that has enabled us to prosper as a nation.

At his funeral in Lewisburg, Tennessee, the eight-year-old son he left behind was presented with the flag from his father’s casket. This was captured in a heart-rending photograph that has circulated around the Internet. But Golczynski was not the only one who was duped. Instead of being outraged about his son’s death, his father said that “we owe a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to pay.” And instead of resenting the government that sent the father of her son to fight and die in a senseless foreign war, his wife said that her husband “made the sacrifice for my freedom.”

The terrible truth, of course, is that Sergeant Golczynski, like all of the other soldiers who died in Iraq, died for a lie. He was duped by his commander in chief who said our cause was just. He was duped by the secretary of defense who said the war would be over quickly. He was duped by his commanding officers who said he should obey orders. He was duped by veterans who said he was fighting for our freedoms. He was duped by Republicans who said he needed to follow the president’s leadership. He was duped by politicians who said we should trust them. He was duped by pundits who said we had to fight them “over there” lest we have to fight them “over here.” He was duped by preachers who said we should obey the powers that be. He was duped by Christians who said we must fight against Islamo-fascism. He was duped by Americans who said he was a hero. He was duped by the lying and killing machine known as his own government.

Marcus Golczynski was not alone. Millions of Americans were duped as well. Millions of Americans remain duped. The fact that McCain can talk about being in Iraq for a hundred years and still be greeted by cheering crowds and receive millions of votes says a lot about just how much Americans are duped.

The love affair that Americans have with all things military must be ended. The United States has become a rogue state, a pariah nation, an evil empire – all made possible by the dupes in the U.S. military we call heroes.

April 18, 2008

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest book is a new and greatly expanded edition of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. Visit his website.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0802b.asp

by Sheldon Richman, Posted May 9, 2008

What’s more obnoxious than a person who constantly whines about the real and imagined injustices committed against him while ignoring his own injustices against others?

A country that does the same thing.

One of the great myths accepted by the American people is that historically, the United States — more precisely, the U.S. government — has been a gentle giant, powerful and rich but entirely peaceful and well-meaning, and slow to anger when wronged. The truth is nearly the diametric opposite.

We often hear American politicians and commentators reciting a list of “terrorist” acts committed against the “United States.” It typically includes the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1996 bombing of U.S. Air Force housing in Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden in Yemen. Reciting this string of attacks supposedly demonstrates, without further argument, that the United States has been the major victim of violence on the world stage — unprovoked violence perpetrated by “Islamofascists” because we are free and represent democracy. Indeed, it is widely believed that the attacks on September 11, 2001, were in part the result of “our” failure to retaliate for those unprovoked earlier attacks.

But this is sheer balderdash. The attacks, while often criminally misdirected, were hardly unprovoked. They were not bolts out of the blue. On the contrary, they were seen by the perpetrators as retaliation against the world’s dominant imperial power.

The last century-plus of U.S. foreign policy has largely been a story of aggression and empire-building. American presidents have intervened and interfered in every region of the world, not in self-defense, but in the name of U.S. “national interest,” which in reality means the interest of well-connected corporations and their ambitious political agents who felt appointed by history to bring order to the world. In the view of the policy advocates, the best interests of America, as they conceived them, and the best interests of the people of the world coincided. Of course the people of the world were given no say in the matter. What was in their interest was decided for them by American policymakers and their foreign agents.

Most Americans haven’t gained by this approach to foreign affairs — in fact, they have paid dearly in money and lives. But not as dearly as those on the receiving end of that policy. For all the pious moralizing about democracy and human rights, American foreign policy has treated foreign populations like garbage, beginning with the brutal repression of the Filipino uprising against American colonial rule from 1899 to 1902. That war and its related hardships killed 250,000 to a million Filipino civilians and 20,000 Filipino rebels. In other words, foreigners have been regarded as highly as the Indians were.

How many Americans know that?

Intervention and blowback

Since that time American presidents have intervened, directly or by proxy, in countless places, including Cuba, Haiti, Colombia (Panama), Chile, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. On many occasions American administrations have engineered regime changes (sometimes with assassinations) to install leaders friendly to “American interests.” Rarely has intervention occurred without the murder of innocent civilians, degrading hardship for survivors, and arms and (taxpayer) money for repressive “leaders.” The paradigm is the 1953 intervention in Iran, when the CIA helped drive an elected, secular prime minister from office so the autocratic shah could be restored to power. His brutal U.S.-sponsored repression of the Iranian people finally provoked an Islamic revolution in 1979, creating an anti-American theocracy that has been a thorn in the side of U.S. presidents ever since.

Coincidence? Of course not. Americans may be ignorant or forgetful; the victims seldom are.

To this day we routinely hear references to the Iranian takeover of the U.S. embassy and the 444 days the American hostages were held. Rarely do those references mention that the flare-up of violence followed a quarter century of cruel dictatorship, in which torture was a state policy — all sponsored by U.S. administrations. One can criticize the embassy seizure and the holding of hostages. But it is wrong to think that America was an aggrieved party. But that’s how it works in big-power politics. An imperial force can wreak all kinds of havoc in a weaker foreign country, but there is no outrage in the domestic population until the victims strike back, usually with pathetically meager force compared with what the aggressive power employed.

Iran was neither the first nor the last case of “blowback,” the CIA’s term for what happens when a foreign operation explodes in one’s own face. Indeed, American foreign policy from the end of the 19th century onward can be viewed as a series of blowbacks.

None of this means that innocent American civilians deserve to be killed or injured in retaliation for the government’s conduct. The American people did not “invite” the 9/11 attacks. Not even the U.S. government did that, if by “invite” we mean “sought” or “welcomed.” Arguing that issue is a distraction from what really matters.

The point is that U.S. policy in the Middle East was bound to create victims who sooner or later would want revenge. That they were less than discriminating in whom they sought revenge against does not alter that fundamental fact. To comprehend is not to excuse. If a victim of a crime goes on to commit a crime himself, that should not be a reason to ignore the initial crime. A country keeps itself safe from terrorism first by not forcibly imposing itself on others.

Every imperial power has been the target of what is called “terrorism.” But this term itself should make us suspicious. To be sure, horrific crimes against innocents are included under that label. But one must ask how legitimate the concept is in light of the fact that applying it to any U.S. conduct is impermissible virtually by definition. Something is wrong when the United States in the eyes of many Americans is incapable of committing terrorism, but any resistance to U.S. impositions is condemned with that term. Who controls the definitions controls the future.

How many Americans have any inkling of the crimes — yes, crimes — their government has committed against foreign people in their name over the last century? Most don’t know and don’t care — and that’s fine with their rulers because when vengeful foreigners assault American civilians (unjustifiably) or military occupiers, U.S. leaders and jingoist supporters can say, “America was the victim of another unprovoked attack. Why do they hate us?”

Anyone who is the least bit familiar with history will know the answer. It doesn’t take much effort to learn the truth. Reputable scholars and journalists have turned out a library full of books in the last six years documenting the U.S. government’s record as an international bully. There’s no excuse for ignorance.

Let’s stop whining and get curious. As Walt Kelly’s Pogo put it, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association” or send him email.

This article originally appeared in the February 2008 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.

From The Future of Freedom Daily

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0802c.asp

by James Bovard, Posted May 5, 2008

Americans are taught to expect their elected leaders to be relatively honest. But it wasn’t always like that. In the mid 1800s, people joked about political candidates who claimed to have been born in a log cabin that they built with their own hands. This jibe was spurred by William Henry Harrison’s false claim of a log-cabin birth in the 1840 presidential campaign.

Americans were less naive about dishonest politicians in the first century after this nation’s founding. But that still did not deter presidents from conjuring up wars. Presidential deceits on foreign policy have filled cemeteries across the land. George W. Bush’s deceits on the road to war with Iraq fit a long pattern of brazen charades.

In 1846, James K. Polk took Americans to war after falsely proclaiming that the Mexican army had crossed the U.S. border and attacked a U.S. army outpost — “shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil.” Though Polk refused to provide any details of where the attack occurred, the accusation swayed enough members of Congress to declare war against Mexico. Congressman Abraham Lincoln vigorously attacked Polk for his deceits. But Lincoln may have studied Polk’s methods, since they helped him whip up war fever 15 years later.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson took the nation to war in a speech to Congress that contained one howler after another. He proclaimed that “self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor states with spies” — despite the role of the British secret service and propaganda operations in the prior years to breed war fever in the United States. Wilson hailed Russia as a nation that had always been “democratic at heart” — less than a month after the fall of the tsar and not long before the Bolshevik Revolution. He proclaimed that the government would show its friendship and affection for German-Americans at home — but his administration was soon spearheading loyalty drives that spread terror in many communities across the land.

In 1940, in one of his final speeches of the presidential campaign, Franklin Roosevelt assured voters, “Your president says this country is not going to war.” At the time, he was violating the Neutrality Act by providing massive military assistance to Britain and was searching high and low for a way to take the United States into war against Hitler.

In his 1944 State of the Union address, Roosevelt denounced those Americans with “such suspicious souls — who feared that I have made ‘commitments’ for the future which might pledge this Nation to secret treaties” at the summit of Allied leaders in Tehran the previous month. In early 1945, Roosevelt told Congress that the Yalta Agreement “spells the end of the system of unilateral action and exclusive alliance and spheres of influence.” In reality, he signed off on Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the crushing of any hopes for democracy in Poland.

In August 1945, Harry Truman announced to the world that “the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.” Hiroshima was actually a major city with more than a third of a million people prior to its incineration. But Truman’s lie helped soften the initial impact on the American public of the first use of the atomic bomb. (The U.S. government also vigorously censored photographs of Hiroshima and its maimed survivors.)

Vietnam falsehoods

Presidential and other government lies on foreign policy are often discounted because they are presumed to be motivated by national security. But as Hannah Arendt noted in an essay on the Pentagon Papers, during the Vietnam War,

The policy of lying was hardly ever aimed at the enemy but chiefly if not exclusively destined for domestic consumption, for propaganda at home and especially for the purpose of deceiving Congress.

CIA analysts did excellent work in the early period of the Vietnam conflict. But “in the contest between public statements, always over-optimistic, and the truthful reports of the intelligence community, persistently bleak and ominous, the public statements were likely to win simply because they were public,” Arendt commented. The truth never had a chance when it did not serve Lyndon Johnson’s political calculations.

Vietnam destroyed the credibility of both Lyndon Johnson and the American military. Yet the memory of the pervasive lies of the military establishment did not curb the gullibility of many people for fresh government-created falsehoods a decade or so later. During the 1980s, the U.S. State Department ran a propaganda campaign that placed numerous articles in the U.S. media praising the Nicaraguan Contras and attacking the Sandinista regime. As the Christian Science Monitor noted in 2002, the State Department “fed the Miami Herald a make-believe story that the Soviet Union had given chemical weapons to the Sandinistas. Another tale, which happened to emerge the night of President Ronald Reagan’s reelection victory, held that Soviet MiG fighters were on their way to Nicaragua.” The General Accounting Office investigated and concluded that the State Department operation was illegal, consisting of “prohibited, covert propaganda activities.” There was no backlash against the government when the frauds were disclosed. Instead, it was on to the next scam.

Reagan, Bush, and Clinton

Reagan paved the way for subsequent presidents in immersing anti-terrorist policy in swamps of falsehoods. In October 1983, a month after he authorized U.S. Marine commanders to call in air strikes against Muslims to help the Christian forces in Lebanon’s civil war, a Muslim suicide bomber devastated a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 242 Americans. In a televised speech a few days later, Reagan portrayed the attack as unstoppable, falsely claiming that the truck “crashed through a series of barriers, including a chain-link fence and barbed-wire entanglements. The guards opened fire, but it was too late.” In reality, the guards did not fire because they were prohibited from having loaded weapons — one of many pathetic failures of defense that the Reagan administration sought to sweep under the carpet.

In 1984, after the second successful devastating attack in 18 months against a poorly defended U.S. embassy in Lebanon, Reagan blamed the debacle on his predecessor and falsely asserted that the Carter administration had “to a large extent” gotten “rid of our intelligence agents.” A few days later, while campaigning for reelection, Reagan announced that the second embassy bombing was no longer an issue: “We’ve had an investigation. There was no evidence of any carelessness or anyone not performing their duty.” However, the Reagan administration had not yet begun a formal investigation.

On May 4, 1986, Reagan bragged, “The United States gives terrorists no rewards and no guarantees. We make no concessions; we make no deals.” But the Iranian arms-for-hostage deal that leaked out later that year blew such claims to smithereens. On November 13, 1986, Reagan denied initial reports of the scandal, proclaiming that the “‘no concessions’ [to terrorists] policy remains in force, in spite of the wildly speculative and false stories about arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments. We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages nor will we.” But Americans later learned that the United States had sold 2,000 anti-tank weapons to the Iranian government “in return for promises to release the American hostages there. Money from the sale of those weapons went to support the Contras’ war in Nicaragua,” as Mother Jones magazine noted in 1998.

Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in the summer of 1990 provided a challenge for the first Bush administration to get Americans mobilized. In September 1990, the Pentagon announced that up to a quarter million Iraqi troops were near the border of Saudi Arabia, threatening to give Saddam Hussein a stranglehold on one of the world’s most important oil sources. The Pentagon based its claim on satellite images that it refused to disclose. One American paper, the St. Petersburg Times, purchased two Soviet satellite “images taken of that same area at the same time that revealed that there were no Iraqi troops ‘near the Saudi border — just empty desert.’” Jean Heller, the journalist who broke the story, commented, “That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist.” Even a decade after the first Gulf war, the Pentagon refused to disclose the secret photos that justified sending half a million American troops into harm’s way.

Support for the war was also whipped up by the congressional testimony of a Kuwaiti teenager who claimed she had seen Iraqi soldiers removing hundreds of babies from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and leaving them on the floor to die. George H.W. Bush often invoked the incubator tale to justify the war, proclaiming that the “ghastly atrocities” were akin to “Hitler revisited.” After the United States commenced bombing Iraq, it transpired that the woman who testified was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and that her story was a complete fabrication, concocted in part by a U.S. public relations firm. Dead babies were a more effective selling point than one of the initial justifications Bush announced for U.S. intervention — restoring Kuwait’s “rightful leaders to their place” — as if any Americans seriously cared about putting Arab oligarchs back on their throne. (A few months before Saddam’s invasion, Amnesty International condemned the Kuwaiti government for torturing detainees.)

Bill Clinton’s unprovoked war against Serbia was sold to Americans with preposterous tales of the Kosovo Liberation Army’s being freedom fighters, with absurd claims that a civil war in one corner of southeastern Europe threatened to engulf the entire continent in conflict, with wild and unsubstantiated claims of an ongoing genocide, and with a deluge of lies that the U.S. military was not targeting Serb civilians.

Lying and warring appear to be two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, many Americans continue to be gullible when presidents claim a need to commence killing foreigners. It remains to be seen whether the citizenry is corrigible on this life-and-death issue.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

This article originally appeared in the February 2008 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.

... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure– Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

A recent Austin-American Statesman review of Neo-Con Philip Bobbitt’s new book Terror and Consent features an image of a shredded Constitution under the words “Everything must go,” which acts as a suitable entrée to a disgusting diatribe which praises Bobbitt’s call for the end of America and its replacement with a de facto world government in the name of fighting terror. The words, “How to Fight Terrorism” are in place of a torn piece of the Bill of Rights.

Reviewer James E. McWilliams describes Bobbitt as “a distinguished lecturer and senior fellow at the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia University,” but anyone with a basic grasp of what America’s founders envisioned and what Ronald Reagan later termed the “shining city on a hill” would be more apt to describe Bobbitt – nephew of Lyndon Baines Johnson and former State Department counselor – as an enemy of the Republic.

McWilliams’ fawning review of the book is intended to sucker in millionaire pseudo-intellectuals who think they are part of the elite by using mental gymnastics and brazenly contradictory statements in order to justifying the revolting underlying premise of the book.

As soon as we learn that the facade of Bobbitt’s argument is to provide a solution “for fighting the wars that are bound to plague the 21st century,” we’re already safe in the knowledge that Bobbitt represents another chicken-necked warhawk who has already claimed ownership of the next 10 decades for his Neo-Con ideological fetish of imperial bloodletting and brutal domination.

So what exactly is Bobbitt’s solution?

The complete obliteration of sovereignty and the nation state and its replacement with a new “order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations” that will have the power to pursue “more aggressive tactics of preclusionary warfare,” meaning more pre-emptive invasions of broken-backed third world countries to expand the creaking pax-Americana empire.

Despite terse and contradictory promises that we will still have some semblance of freedom in Bobbitt’s technocracy, he admits that there will be “no obvious answer to many of the human rights issues that are bound to arise,” as a result of his plan to completely eviscerate God-given freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The reviewer cites Bobbitt’s justification to impose world government as a means of combating,”The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital and the “universalization of culture” have eroded the conventional borders that once legitimated national security,” all problems that were created by globalists’ drive to impose centralized systems of control in the first place by creating crises and then posing as the saviors.

This is another classic example of problem-reaction-solution. Use the pretext of the problems you have created to then offer a solution that befits your ultimate agenda – global government.

“Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force without a Security Council authorization,” and “In cases in which the use of non-lethal chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine such methods as “counterforce measures,” writes McWilliams.

The “use of chemical weapons,” where have we heard that one before?

It was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century – the ideological framework of the Bush administration, who proposed the use of “…advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes (which) may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

A leaked British Ministry of Defence report last year also envisioned a nightmare future society in which the population are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and biological and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.

(Ed. I’m tellin’ you folks-the people running our govts. are nut cases and probably demonically controled. Cheney, Wolfawitz, even Bush need to be carefully watched. They want to kill us off to have better control)

Since Bobbitt cites “non-lethal chemical weapons” as a means of “preventing terror” what exactly does he mean? Mass-medicating Americans’ drinking water with sodium fluoride to keep the population docile and subservient to the new international order, absent of traditional constitutional rights, that Bobbitt seeks to impose? The vagueness of the reference suggests Bobbitt and in turn the simpering reviewer McWilliams are attempting to carefully dance around the true scale of the horror that they are advocating.

Mandating a false choice between the acceptance of terrorism as a routine cancer upon society or the imposition of a brutal warmongering world government and the obliteration of sovereignty and the constitution, the book advises us to progress, “not by choosing good over bad, but — as is usually the case in war and politics — the lesser of evils.

And the lesser of evils in this case is to allow Bobbitt and his salivating Neo-Con cronies to have their way with the 21st century while they posture and insist their global government is our savior against a terrorist threat that they created in the first place. As Bobbitt would no doubt agree with the CFR’s Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the globalists are “not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money,” and as H.G. Wells proclaimed, “Countless people… will hate the new world order… and will die protesting against it… When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents…” (Ed. They’ve been talking about this for a long time. The Plan is in place. Are you prepared-is your heart right? There may not be much time left, “now is the day of salvation”. It is time to repent)

We are those “malcontents” that the globalists fear so much, we are the representation of everything that is good about the human spirit – love, hope, the yearning for freedom and a kindred bond with our fellow man, along with the shared promise of a peaceful and prosperous future for our children.

Bobbitt and the rest of the Neo-Con turds who have already decided to condemn us to a century of warfare, tyranny, and centralized control may be surprised to learn that the resistance to their agenda is accelerating and that the true essence of humanity, the “malcontents,” will rise up and condemn them to the only place they belong – on the scrapheap of history.

Philip Bobbitt:

Phone: (512) 232-1376
Fax: (512) 471-6988
E-mail:
PBOBBITT@LAW.UTEXAS.EDU

If you contact Bobbitt, please be polite in your disagreement.

Always Question Authority-Do not be deceived by those who tell you to submit

to this stuff.

That Message is form the Pit of Hell. We were created to submit to only one. Not the Government.

Not some pastor or other spiritual leader

Submit to Yahushua Alone!

Think for yourselves!

The eletists depend on you acting like Robots or slaves.

Come out of her My Beloved”.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html

Download Video 15.6 MB WMV full video

Richard Porter, the head of news at BBC World issued this explanation of the BBC World video:

  1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
  2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
  3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
  4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.
  5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

Below are some selected comments made in reply to Mr Porter’s explanation:

How deservedly ironic that the BBC gets exposed for what it really is (a propaganda bureau that attempts to indoctrinate Britain and the world with a false reality) so soon after the airing of the appalling hit piece (9/11 conspiracy files) last Sunday night. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire?
I’m not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it’s collapse is highly suspicious.

If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you’d just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.

You can’t possibly expect us to believe this. Let’s look at all the pieces here.

1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.

2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC’s report….or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley’s live shot was disconnected.

3. BBC loses all of it’s 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He’s 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?

4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.

5. BBC’s response is, ‘there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.’

Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.

Oh, and the ez-out phrases like ‘it appears’ and ‘we’re receiving reports that..’ were not used throughout this footage.

Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2.

The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it’s definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.

To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn’t it? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor’s trousers had fallen down before they did so
Let’s say for a second that you messed up and reported a building going down that didn’t – why the exact one that DID? What are the odds? Why not by mistake report a building going down that DIDN’T actually go down?

You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history… 😉
(Good job! That way no one can “prove” anything that day…)

Out of all the surrounding buildings that suffered massive damage – WTC 3,4,5,6 – and assorted others that suffered minor damage (amoung them, WTC 7 – Salomon Brothers Building), BBC – by merely a mistake and in confusion – picked exactly the right one that was going to fall -…. 😉
(Good job! Hey, BBC is incompetent – they lose tapes AND they claim buildings fall that haven’t – but what LUCK! They hit the lottery! What a ‘lucky guess’, huh?)

BBC should go to Vegas, with those odds – you’d be rich.

BBC is not part of the conspiracy – but you are just a bunch of pathetic dupes.

You capture the biggest smoking gun in history … and your response is ….. to call yourselves incompetent and go play ‘blind/deaf/dumb monkey’ on your public.

Good job, Guys!!

“If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that.”

Uh, it WASN’T an error… That’s the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn’t the anchor say something like, “We’re getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing… We’ll have to check up on this… etc.” No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was “…trying to make sense of what they were seeing… and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.”

And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross… So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We’ll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air).

Do I think the BBC is “…part of a conspiracy”? No… but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO.

With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. At the very least you are minimizing your error and trivializing the life’s lost or the potential of life’s that could have been saved. In the most important final 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the said segment the words “apparently”, “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” ARE NOT USED in context of building 7. The words used are those have definite and past tense. “Now more on the latest building collapse in New York,…the Solomon Brothers Building collapse… and indeed it has” “What can you tell us about the Salomon Building and it’s collapse?” “When it collapsed” Ticker –“The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.” Who is responsible for the newsroom in desk and floor prompters being used by the news presenter? Who is responsible for the news report on the bottom screen news ticker? Who is responsible as the newsroom floor source for giving these people information? What is the complete list of editors and journalists responsible for this program on said day? The words in your statement #4 of footage being lost may very well redefine irresponsible. The BBC Media Management policy clearly states TWO broadcast standard copies be retained one on a separate site as a master. As follows. Ref No. Policy Area / Policy Statement 01 Components to be Retained 01-01 The following components to be retained:- Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast materialhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/
archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm#top
If the footage had continued, we’d all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program.

Good thing you lost the feed five minutes before THAT happened in front of all your viewers.

What in the world would you have said if that had happened?

What is going on here?

I’d like a little truth please.

I never actually thought I would live to see the day that things would surpass even Orwell, Huxley, Wells, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Zamyatin, Ayne Rand, on and on…but, the virtual reality that the “media” create for us now is truly more unfathomable than even those great minds warned us of.
Contrary to the dismissive tone of the “explanation”, whether or not the building was known to be about to fall goes to essential point of culpability for 9/11, foreknowledge.

Those who are in the dock and being cross-examined are not allowed to wave their hands and create a plausible explanation. It’s gone too far for that. There is a disastrous war built on false evidence, and that falsification process may have begun much sooner than is generally now understood.

In ordinary life, a witness who lies about one thing will be assumed to lie about everything. And we aren’t talking about private matters, but about the essential role of a government to defend its country. This issue is about credibility of news sources during a terror attack, in which a rush to judgment resulted shortly in an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the BBC know it.

Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost thus far, and there are doubtless more to come

 

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/081

BUZZFLASH EDITOR’S BLOG

by Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

April 15, 2008

 

Statue of Ronald Reagan in Full Cowboy Gear at the Entrance to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It is entitled “After the Ride.”

Dateline: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California Before you open a door and enter into the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, a large bronze sculpture of a strapping cowboy greets you, with the wide-eyed optimism of the mythic west, a handkerchief dangling from the back pocket of a pair of jeans, and cowboy hat in hand. It’s called “After the Ride” and it is a tribute to Ronald Reagan. Or make that the myth of Ronald Reagan. Reagan, as the fawning exhibition area that paints a flattering, blemish free portrait of his life unintentionally reveals, went from a childhood and small college upbringing in Illinois to a Hollywood “B” film career, to spokesperson for the GE corporation, to Death Valley Days, to the political life that led him to the White House. The key transition, not noted as such by the library narrative, is when Reagan became the hired front man for GE, hosting a program for them but also going around the country selling the concept that the corporation is a benevolent and positive force in our lives, without any downsides. Reagan went from a “B” movie career to an “A” career as a political salesman for corporate wealth and control of the government. In the turbulent social climate of the ’60s, his wealthy backers (who regarded him as a prize race horse for a right-wing coup for the super rich and corporate welfare) watched as Reagan won the governorship and masterfully was guided in the use of wedge issues such as “Guns and God” to lure the emerging displaced middle class into voting Republican. Aside from the “October Surprise,” when Reagan negotiators allegedly convinced the Iranian mullahs to hold onto our hostages until Reagan’s inauguration day (they were literally released after he was sworn in), the GOP had perfected the selling of a myth about America — and they had the hale and hearty actor to sell the product. The myth of “morning in America” obscured the emerging theft of jobs from the middle class by creating emotional hot buttons for rural and working class voters to gravitate toward: Their values were under attack by liberal extremists, they were repeatedly told. Only the Republicans could save the nation from further moral degradation, the myth went — and only the GOP could guarantee victory in foreign conflicts (even if the conflicts were often unnecessary and the GOP failed to achieve “victory,” however it might be defined). Because our perceptions today are so dependent upon television as a source, how one acts as president or senator has superseded, in large part, what one does. Ronald Reagan made many working class and rural voters proud to be Americans again, but meanwhile, behind the scenes, corporate lobbyists and Reagan’s aides (who were really running the show) went about dismantling factories in places like central Pennsylvania and moving them overseas, sometimes — literally — in the dark of night. It was the Republican version of “Let them eat cake.” Only, in this case, it was: “Let them eat God, Guns, and Patriotism.” This process that began with Reagan’s election continued through Bush I — and to a degree in the Bill Clinton Administration, as he aggressively pursued NAFTA and followed the neo-liberal economic agenda of opening up the gates of exporting jobs in return for larger corporate profits — and it rocketed ahead in the administration of Bush II into a juggernaut of betrayal of the middle class. Hunting and faith are important to many people in rural America and small towns — as faith is throughout America — but there has and will be no threat to those core “values.” There is no gun control measure with any remote possibility of passing in any state that would affect hunters — and Democrats and civil libertarians are ardent supporters of the right to follow one’s religious beliefs without government interference. So, Barack Obama’s remarks in San Francisco, as borne out by a true understanding of the Ronald Reagan myth, are ultimately true. His mistake was that he said what he said in a way that allowed the twin corporate D.C. insiders — McCain and Clinton — to once again demagogue the issue into one of emotion, rather than fact. And that is what the attack on Obama is about: demagoguery. I can’t save workers from voting against their own economic interests when they vote to defend values that no one is going to take away from them. And I understand that Clinton and McCain are playing on the pride of such displaced members of the middle class. No one wants to be told that they have been duped for nearly 30 years by the wealthy backers of the Republicrats. Rural and small town Pennsylvanians want to feel proud about America and themselves — and the uproar from the McCain and Clinton camps once again presses the hot button of dignity, while privately believing in (whatever Clinton is saying on the campaign trail today) policies that will continue to erode the earnings and standard of living of the very people that they claim to be championing. The media owned by corporate elites has a role in this, too. Last month, the conventional wisdom of the media, for the most part, was that the deteriorating rust belt of Western Pennsylvania had left many former decently paid workers angry and bitter. But, on a dime, the new conventional wisdom, after Obama’s remarks, was that it was insulting to say that these same people are angry and bitter. Nothing says more about the non-factual based reporting of the mainstream press than that sudden conversion, because the mainstream media represents the global corporate interests of its multinational parent companies who reap the profits of moving jobs overseas. What Obama said was shorthand for this grim reality: no one is really threatening the traditions of hunting, or anyone’s faith, or heterosexual marriage. But there are plenty of politicians among the Republicrats — usually the Republicans, but Hillary Clinton has joined with them on this one — who exploit the fear that conspiratorial “leftist” forces are conspiring to end hunting and religious belief in America. This is the heart of being a demagogue, because it is an appeal to emotion that has no basis in fact. It is how Republicans have won many an election, and how Senator Clinton is now trying, in a last gasp, to obtain the office she has compromised so much of her life pursuing. As someone who was born and raised in Illinois, and having lived here my adult life, I was always surprised by how little connection Reagan appeared as an adult to have with home state. During his presidency, he rarely returned here, and his persona was tied to the myth of the cowboy, the triumphant rugged conqueror of the West. Illinois was just part of his early biography. He seemed to have no strong emotional attachment to the very Midwest roots that he so championed. It just didn’t fit in with the mythic figure that came out of his films, Western ranch (which was the inspiration for Rove getting Bush to buy his Crawford spread and do a Reagan “cut the brush” imitation), and heroic GI movie roles during WW II (which he never actually fought in.) So we understand that some of the working class who buy clothes at Wal-Mart that they used to make — because the price is right — only the blouses and shirts are made in China now — we understand that they feel insulted by some politician telling them that they’ve been taken for a ride, that no one is going to stop them from hunting or going to their church, but that the people who peddle that nonsense to them are allowing corporations to steal their jobs and wallets from right in front of their noses. That’s a tough pill to swallow, that you’ve been swindled for 30 years. But McCain and Clinton are once again pulling the same Republicrat tricks of playing on emotional vulnerabilities while ignoring the truth surrounding the job heist that is occurring in places like Pennsylvania. Yes, it is bad political practice to ever say anything that makes a group of potential voters feel that they are being insulted because you’re making the claim that they’ve been had. But if you want to help those same people out to create a positive future for employment and their standard of living, you can’t keep hiding the truth under a rock. Obama’s statement could have been said more fully, and not so elliptically, and that would have explained the difference between respect for traditions and beliefs, and exploitation of those very same characteristics for political gain by those who are exploiting the working class. But, in the end, as he did with race, Obama is touching upon a third rail of truth that neither party wants to discuss much. The “K Street Lobbyists” are very pleased with the masquerade and demagoguery that achieved, and now accelerates, the slide of the middle class towards a lower class fate. The working class will have its faith, hunting, and small town “values,” but it can’t have them if they don’t have jobs. And after Obama’s remarks, they can’t say that they weren’t warned by an honest politician.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR’S BLOG

 

by Chuck Baldwin
April 15, 2008

Every four years, conservative “pragmatists” trot out the “We Can’t Let So-And-So Win” mantra. Of course, the so-and-so in question is always the Democratic Presidential candidate. For all of my adult life, I have been listening to so-called “conservative” Republicans warn us of the impending doom that would befall our country if the Democratic candidate were elected. And this year is no different. This year’s Republican primary did provide a wonderful aberration, however, to the usual choices between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Republicans had an opportunity to nominate a real American constitutionalist, a statesman in the similitude of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. That man was Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. Unfortunately, the Republican faithful seem to be incapable of discerning the marks of true greatness, not to mention fidelity to constitutional government. It is doubtful that most of them even understand what constitutional government is. And as for Christian conservatives, they can barely see any issues beyond abortion and “gay rights.” To try and convince them to support a constitutionalist candidate is like talking to a brick wall. So, what choice does the Republican Party offer the American people this year? The worst of all possible choices: good old John “McSame” McCain. Let’s be clear: a John McCain Presidency will be no better than a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama Presidency. In fact, in many ways, a McCain White House will be WORSE than a Democratic one. On many issues, there is virtually no distinction between John McCain and any potential Democratic candidate. John McCain is no friend to gun owners. He is no friend to pro-lifers. He is no friend to fiscal conservatives. He is no friend to property owners. He is no friend to “family values” voters. He is no friend to America’s blue-collar workers. He is no friend to small business owners. He is no friend to opponents of illegal immigration. On the other hand, John McCain is a great friend to Big Business. Similarly, he is a friend to Big Government and Big Brother. He is also a friend to open borders, supranational government, regionalism, and American imperialism. But this is where the Boogeyman comes in. At this point, Republican Party lackeys will break in and say, “We can’t let Hillary Clinton win. We can’t let Barack Obama win.” Even the favored son of the Religious Right, Mike Huckabee, has endorsed John McCain, not to mention Mitt Romney and virtually every other Republican “bigwig.” (Thank God, Ron Paul has maintained his integrity by NOT endorsing McCain.) I, for one, am fed up with this baloney, because what we are actually faced with is not the “lesser of two evils” but “the evil of two lessers.” (To quote a good friend of mine.) And the reason John McCain would actually be a worse President than either Obama or Clinton is because of the manner in which conservatives go to sleep whenever a Republican occupies the Oval Office. Furthermore, the next couple of years are “crunch time” for this burgeoning North American Union and related issues. America is currently facing the most serious threat to its national independence and sovereignty since the War of 1812. The forces of globalism have declared an all-out war against our country’s independence. Illegal immigration, the NAFTA superhighway, the North American Community, a regional currency called the Amero, and “free trade” deals are just a few of the weapons in their arsenal. And John McCain will use every bit of his power as President to facilitate all of this chicanery. And, because McCain is a Republican, conservatives and Christians will sit back and let it happen without even the slightest whimper of resistance. If Obama or Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office, however, massive numbers of conservatives and Christians would rise in protest over every inch of ground ceded to these nefarious nabobs. So, tell me, who is the greater evil? I say it is John McCain. I realize that there are many readers shouting to themselves right now and saying, “So what do we do, Chuck? We have to vote for one or the other.” To which I say, No you don’t. You can think outside the box. You don’t have to throw your vote away on either of these wretched candidates. You can cast a vote for principle and vote for a third party candidate. I can hear readers screaming at me now, saying that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I strongly disagree! Casting a vote for a person who you know is unfaithful to your principles is a wasted vote! Voting for someone who you know will keep our borders and ports open to illegals, continue George Bush’s preemptive war doctrine, and facilitate a burgeoning hemispheric government–not to mention someone who will increase and augment a burgeoning Orwellian police state–is a wasted vote! At some point, we Americans must decide whether we will tolerate the continued sellout of our freedoms and principles or not. Will we swallow the shallow squeals of the establishment elite who think we are a bunch of sheep to be herded into their New World Order? Or will we stand our ground? Will we vote our principles and our conscience? It does not matter that the pundits and experts say we can’t win. That is not our business. As John Quincy Adams said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.” When will Christians, especially, quit trying to play politics and start standing for principle? They talk a lot about principle, but when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, most don’t act like people of principle. If God intends to give America another chance, if He intends to return these United States to constitutional government, and if He intends to preserve America’s independence, it will only come in the form of a miracle. And miracles do not happen by the machinations of pragmatic planners. Miracles are just that. America was born a miracle, and it could now be given a new birth by miracle. If so, it would demand that people of principle start acting like it. That we cast aside the pragmatic, the reasonable, the sophisticated, and the expected. That we–as did the priests of old–would be willing to step out into the raging current of the Jordan River, knowing that either God would part the water or we would drown. That we would be willing to sign our names to a document–as did our Founding Fathers–that would make us either the enemies of the state or the inventors of a new nation. It means taking risks; it means doing the impractical; it means rejecting accepted wisdom and standing for principle. I am convinced that only a miracle can save America now. And I am expecting God to grant such a miracle. Beyond that, I am willing to do my part to place myself in a position to let God use my voice and my vote to accomplish this miracle. And if that means voting for someone who “has no chance of winning” in order to let God take the glory for whatever victory results, it is the least I can do. So, who will join me? *If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin This column is archived as

 http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080415.html

www fff.org

The Martial Law Act of 2006
by James Bovard, Posted April 9, 2008

Martial law is perhaps the ultimate stomping of freedom. And yet, on September 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision in a 591-page bill that will make it easy for President Bush to impose martial law in response to a terrorist “incident.” It also empowers him to effectively declare martial law in response to what he or other federal officials label a shortfall of “public order” — whatever that means.

It took only a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened those restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the United States without the express permission of Congress. (This act was passed after the depredations of the U.S. military throughout the Southern states during Reconstruction.)

But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act aim to deter dictatorship while permitting a narrow window for the president to temporarily use the military at home. But the 2006 reforms basically threw any concern about dictatorial abuses out the window.

Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list of pretexts to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” — and such a “condition” is not defined or limited.

One might think that given the experience with the USA PATRIOT Act and many other abuses of power, Congress would be leery about giving this president his biggest blank check yet to suspend the Constitution. But that would be naive.

The new law was put in place in response to the debacle of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. There was no evidence that permitting a president far more power would avoid future debacles, but such a law provides a comfort blanket to politicians. The risk of tyranny is irrelevant compared with the reduction of risk of embarrassment to politicians. According to Washington, the correct response to Katrina is not to recognize the failure of relying on federal agencies a thousand miles away but rather to vastly increase the power of the president to dictate a solution, regardless of whether he knows what he is doing and regardless of whether local and state rights are trampled.

The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for as many as 365 days. Bush could send the South Carolina National Guard to suppress anti-war protests in New Haven. Or the next president could send the Massachusetts National Guard to disarm the residents of Wyoming, if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Governors’ control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration.

Section 1076 had bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, including support from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Since the law would give the feds more power, it was very popular inside the Beltway.

On the other hand, every governor in the country opposed the changes. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on September 19, 2006, that “we certainly do not need to make it easier for presidents to declare martial law.” Leahy’s alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record, “Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.”

A U.S. Enabling Act

The new law vastly increases the danger from the actions of government provocateurs. If there is an incident now like the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993, it would be far easier for the president to declare martial law — even if, as then, it was an FBI informant who taught the culprits how to make the bomb. Even if the FBI masterminds a protest that turns violent, the president could invoke the “incident” to suspend the Constitution.

“Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights before they are locked away. “Martial law” means: Obey soldiers’ commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in Southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug.

Section 1076 is an Enabling Act-type legislation — something which purports to preserve law and order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

Bush can commandeer a state’s National Guard any time he declares a “state has refused to enforce applicable laws.” Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood — or to the “laws” after Bush “fixes” them with a signing statement? Unfortunately, it is not possible for Americans to commandeer the federal government even when Bush admits that he is breaking a law (such as the Anti-Torture Act).

Section 1076 is the type of “law” that would probably be denounced by the U.S. State Department’s Annual Report on Human Rights if enacted by a foreign government. But when the U.S. government does the same thing, it is merely another proof of benevolent foresight. The “comfort blanket” on Section 1076 is that the powers will not be abused because the president will show more concern with the Bill of Rights than Congress did when it rubberstamped this provision. This is the same “pass the buck on the Constitution” that worked so well with the PATRIOT Act, the McCain Feingold Campaign Reform Act, and the Military Commissions Act. As long as there is hypothetically some branch of the government that will object to oppression, no one has the right to fear losing his liberties.

The military on the home front

Section 1076 is more ominous in light of the Bush administration’s long record of Posse Comitatus violations. Since 2001, the Bush administration has accelerated a trend of using the military as a tool in the nation’s domestic affairs. From its support of the Total Information Awareness surveillance vacuum cleaner, to its use of Pentagon spy planes during the Washington-area sniper shootings in 2002, to the Pentagon’s seizures of Americans’ financial and other private information without a warrant, the Bush administration has not hesitated to use military force and intimidation at home whenever convenient. And Americans may have little or no idea of how far the military has actually gone on the home front, given the Bush team’s obsessive secrecy.

The Pentagon has sent U.S. military intelligence agents on domestic fishing expeditions. In 2004, two U.S. Army intelligence agents descended on the University of Texas’s law school in Austin. They entered the office of the Journal of Women and the Law and demanded that the editors turn over a roster of the people who attended a recent conference on Islam and women. The editors denied having a list; the behavior of one agent was described as intimidating. The agents then demanded contact information for the student who organized the conference, Sahar Aziz. University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock commented,
We certainly hope that the Army doesn’t believe that attending a conference on Islamic law or Islam and women is itself ground for investigation.

Military officials later declared that U.S. Army intelligence agents had overstepped their bounds. But this did not stop the Bush administration from having a provision inserted in a bill passed in secret session by the Senate Intelligence Committee that would allow military intelligence agents to conduct surveillance and recruit informants in the United States. Wired.com reported,
Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents.

The provision would authorize military agents to go undercover and never inform their targets that they were dealing with a G-man. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, denounced the provision:
This … is giving them the authority to spy on Americans. And it’s all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night.

The controversy over the amendment scuttled its enactment, though it is unclear whether that has deterred the military from expanding its domestic spying.

There is no Honesty-in-Absolute-Power mandate in the federal statute books. The more power government seizes, the more easily it can suppress the truth. There is nothing to prevent a president from declaring martial law on false pretexts — any more than there is to prevent him from launching a foreign war on false pretenses. And when the lies become exposed years later, it could be far too late to resurrect lost liberties.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

This article originally appeared in the January 2008 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.

© 2001-2007 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

by A.D Lelong 

Yesterday at 3:45 in the morning, some juvenile-minded idiot on a bicycle placed a military surplus ammo box containing a small explosive device in front of the Armed Services Recruitment office at 43rd Street in Times Square. This exploded causing the glass door to the office to break. There was no other damage except to the door. No one was hurt, but the noise was loud enough to get people’s attention; one British tourist described it as “a loud bang.”

The response by the Government was predictably extreme. Immediately, officials closed Times Square to all traffic, vehicular and pedestrian. They also shut down all subway access to the Times Square Subway Station, a major hub station serving some 16 subway lines. This shutdown lasted some three hours, precisely the height of the morning rush hour, affecting hundreds of thousands of commuters.

The Government wasted no time to exploit this event, and explain their over-reaction. At 9:20 AM, Mayor Michael Bloomberg staged a demonstration of state power and competence. He had a press conference and brought out all the high brass: NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly and a phalanx of bureaucrats from the Governors office, the FBI, and Homeland Security – this last item for you Germans out there translates, roughly, into Geheime Staats Politzei.

Now, first let me disclaim strenuously the act of this moron. Even if he were motivated by an antiwar sentiment, with which I agree, his actions are unacceptable, and counterproductive to the cause of anti-violence. Using violence – even an innocuous home made device no more powerful than a cherry bomb or M-80 firecracker – endorses violence in order to make the political statement that the US Government is wrong to use military violence. This is a moral contradiction.

I denounce this as I denounce other stupid demonstrations such as: silly bumper stickers, retarded rhyming chants, and moronic placards. These techniques don’t educate, nor do they persuade people towards the protesters cause. Most likely they alienate potential converts. These methods are no substitution for rational argument.

However, given the poor state of learning and intellectual discourse in these United States, I understand the tendency to express oneself using mindless gimmicks. Therefore, in the spirit of the times, the Zeitgeist for you Germans, I offer my own little non-violent gimmick. I offer to translate Mayor Bloomberg’s press conference for the untutored. I offer to turn Leviathanspeak into ordinary English.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: At approximately 3:45 this morning there was a small explosion outside the military recruiting station…here in Times Square, the Crossroads Of The World.

TRANSLATION: Some crank or college student – who opposes the US Government squandering trillions of dollars on war, causing anti-US hatred abroad and economic ruin within – used some black powder, or other commercially sold chemicals, or some fireworks to break the window of a high-profile military showcase installation in Times Sq.

NOTE: The use of the term “Crossroads Of The World” is gothamspeak for Times Square. This must be explained etymologically. Americans are a provincial people ignorant of the outside world. Its principal city is especially provincial; peopled by fauna who barely recognize the visible world outside their tiny archipelago save Hollywood, Connecticut, Washington DC or possibly Paris or London. Therefore they regard their largest city intersection as being the crossroads of the world, much like Easter Islanders regard themselves as being the Navel of the World.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: The Fact that this appears deliberately directed at the recruiting station insults everyone of our brave men and women in uniform stationed around the world fighting to defend our freedoms that we hold so dear.

TRANSLATION: The men and women of our military have been euchred by their Government, and if they knew the truth they would be insulted. In order to prop up our post-1971 fiat dollar as a global reserve currency, and to further our massive debt-ridden false prosperity, we must enforce the sale of petroleum in US dollars. Therefore we must maintain, by force, US Global Hegemony, especially in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions. But this does not sound as good as defending our freedoms from terrorists. The fact that others in the world are justified in hating our projection of force, and hate our Government, might have a negative propaganda effect on the overworked young men and women of our armed forces in the over 800 military bases worldwide who bought into the Freedom & Liberty dogma and are starting to question it.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: I want to direct this to those who are watching in this country and around the world. New York City is back and open for business!!! Traffic is flowing through Times Square…the subways and trains are running again!!!!!

TRANSLATION: To those who live in countries where real terrorist bombs explode, killing scores of people, we in New York have survived an M-80 attack and have fixed the glass door. We are not afraid. The subways, buses, and traffic that were never impacted by the minor blast are now running again, after a lengthy delay because the Government has decided that commerce may continue without obstruction.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: Whoever the coward was that committed this disgraceful act on our city will be found and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

TRANSLATION: We will use all our vast power to get this lousy stinking S.O.B for revealing the Mighty American State to be a paper tiger scared of lone guys on bicycles with small explosives. We don’t want the American people to guess that the State can’t protect them against real terrorists with real explosives.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: We will not tolerate such attacks. Nor will we let them destroy our freedom to live safely in the greatest city in the world.

TRANSLATION: This is the greatest city in the world because we live here, and New Yorkers are better than other Americans. The fact that you think your country is better or your people freer, or that your city has cleaner streets, better transportation, more polite people is irrelevant. In order to keep our illusion of moral, intellectual, and economic superiority, we must have cops armed with stun guns and automatic weapons, we must have spot checks, we must search our citizens, with dogs if necessary. We do this because we believe in Liberty and Freedom.

March 8, 2008

A.D Lelong [send him mail] grew up in the NYC area. He started in radio in North Carolina as a reporter. In 1994 he moved back to New York City where he has been working as a producer and newsroom sound editor for a news-talk radio station. He currently lives in Queens and enjoys skeet and sporting clays shooting, bird hunting, and sailing.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Bush Family Chronicle

 by Morgan Strong

The Bush family did not have a distinguished history before Samuel Bush ingratiated himself to the wealthy and powerful. Although they appear to have been present in this country from the early Colonial period, they had gained no distinction. There were no records of a passionate commitment to the American Revolution, nor was there a record that any member of the family served in the ranks of the Continental Army, or in the War of 1812, or the Civil War. They made no great fortunes, nor did they show merit in any endeavor. The Bush family did not prosper, but endured.

In 1934 Senator Gerald Nye, (R, N.D.) held hearings on the profiteering during the First War, by the Rockefeller’s, the Harriman’s and Samuel Bush. The phrase used to describe them collectively, and which became a public label, was the, “Merchants of Death.” Nye accused the cabal of “Deliberately starting wars from which they, and their companies would profit regardless of the consequences.” Nearly all of the records compiled by the Federal government in the investigation of the Rockefellers, Harriman’s, and of Samuel Bush were inexplicably destroyed at some point following the hearings. The destruction of these records would begin an unseemly history of the destruction of incriminating evidence of Bush family unsavory conduct going mysteriously missing.

Prescott Bush, Samuels’s son, served in the First War as an artillery officer. What is remarkable is that Samuel had profited in such a way while his son served at some risk, however small, in the Army. Samuel returned from the First World War to Columbus, Ohio. He was unable to live in that town because of the ridicule arising from the fabrication of his war record while serving in France. Prescott like millions of veterans of that war found himself unemployed.

Prescott went to the Yale class reunion of 1919 where he tried to use his friendships and connections to find a job. His fellow Bonesman Wallace Simmons offered him a position with a company he owned, the St. Louis Railroad Co. He moved to St. Louis to begin work at St. Louis railroad equipment.

In 1919 Prescott Bush met George Herbert Walker’s daughter, Dorothy. They were married two year’s later. This marriage literally saved Prescott Bush from a life of mid-level mediocrity.

George Herbert Walker, Prescott’s father in law, founded the W. H. Harriman & Company private bank in 1919. Averill Harriman was Chairman, his brother Roland “Bunny” Harriman was a partner as well as Percy Rockefeller, Samuel Bush’s mentor. It was Walker’s father who built the family residence at Kennebunkport, Maine.

Prescott was at best mediocre; he had none of the brilliance of his father Samuel, nor was he particularly ambitions. He was however a near perfect scoundrel. He would have stagnated in his job in St. Louis, somewhere in middle management, for the rest of his life were it not for his friend Yale classmate, and bonesman, “Bunny” Harriman. Bunny showed up in St. Louis and offered Prescott a job with the Harriman-controlled U.S. Rubber Co. whose corporate offices were in New York City.

George Herbert Walker Bush was born in St. Louis in 1924, and was one year old when the family moved to Greenwich, Connecticut for Prescott’s new job. Only a year after beginning his job at the U.S. Rubber Co., Prescott was made a vice president of the bank started by his father in law George H. Walker. It was not long before Prescott Bush made his way to the bank, the W.H. Harriman & Co., founded by his father in law and the Harrimans. In May of 1926 Prescott Bush became a Vice President of the Bank, serving under his Father in Law Bert Walker.

Averell Harriman had begun the Hamburg-Amerika line using German steamships confiscated by the American Government during, and following the First World War. Harriman & Co. were given the ships through an arrangement with the U.S. Government. The particulars of that arrangement have never been made public. It was to be the beginning of the Harriman’s, Walker, and Bush’s dealings with the German government, and finally with Adolph Hitler and his Nazi party. The Hamburg-Amerika line resumed shipping between the United States and Germany in 1919.

The Harriman bank then created a subsidiary corporation, the Union Banking Corporation; the UBC was to become a financial conduit, circumventing German banking authorities of the Weimer Republic, for the Nazi party through the accounts of German millionaire industrialist Fritz Thyssen held by UBC bank. Prescott Bush was that Banks C.E.O. In 1941 the UBC held 36 Million dollars in Nazi party money.

In May of 1933 following Hitler’s seizing absolute control of the German government, an agreement was reached in Berlin for the coordination of all Nazi commerce with the United States. Harriman International led by Averill Harriman’s cousin Oliver was to lead a syndicate of 150 firms and individuals, to conduct all exports and imports with the United States. The agreement had been negotiated between Hitler’s Economics Minister, Hjalmar Schacht and John Foster Dulles. Dulles represented dozens of firms doing business with Hitler. Dulles was the principal attorney for Harriman holdings.

Doing business with Hitler was not illegal in the 1930’s, when the Harriman’s began making deals. By the late 1930’s, Brown Brothers Harriman, and U.B.C. had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal, and US treasury bonds to Germany making Hitler’s rise to power possible.

Doing business with Hitler was still legal through the 1930’s. Following Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, all that had changed. The Bank’s assets were finally seized in November of 1942 under the trading with the enemies act. Papers at the National Archives contained in vesting order 248, records the seizing of the properties owned by UBC and listed Prescott Bush as director. Following an investigation of the bank’s books, the government seized three additional companies, The Holland-American Trading Co., the Seamless Steel Corporation, and Silesian-American Company.

The assets of the bank were returned immediately following the war. Prescott Bush, who held one share, received 19 Million dollars in today’s currency as compensation for the seizure of his one share. The Harriman’s received 4 billion dollars in compensation. The bank lived on until 1951 until it was formally dissolved.

According to documents at the Library of Congress and the National Archives, Prescott Bush was the director and shareholder of a number of companies controlled by Fritz Thyssen among them Consolidated Silesian Steel Company. The Harriman bank controlled a one third interest in that company. The other two thirds were owned by Fredrich Flick, a high-ranking Nazi, and the Military Economy Leader of the Third Reich.

Following the war Flick was tried and convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg. He was sentenced to seven years hard labor for employing slave labor from Auschwitz at Silesian Steel. Walker, Harriman, and Prescott Bush were listed as the directors of the company, but they were never charged in the Silesian Steel case. Nor were they ever charged with crimes under the Trading with the Enemy Act, although they were clearly culpable and deserved to be indicted.

The Senate had also investigated Remington after it formed a business partnership with the German firm I.G. Farben. The directors of I.G. Farben was later tried and convicted for war crimes at Nuremburg. The Senate concluded that Hitler’s private army of Brown and Black Shirts, numbering nearly 400 thousand, were armed with American weapons trans-shipped through Holland by the Harriman owned Hamburg-Amerika line. The Senate found the majority of weapons shipped were Remington-Thompson sub machine guns and Remington pistols.

Defining ownership and complicity in the illegal operations of these companies by Prescott Bush and the Harriman’s is burdensome. There are any number of twisted paper trails to defy clear understanding of just who owned what, and just who knew what. Needless to say Prescott Bush and the Harriman’s can not have been wholly innocent dupes of Adolph Hitler. They were in the business of supporting Hitler because they saw the re-emergence of Germany as an industrial power to be to their advantage. That was their motivation and establishes their complicity even if argued tangentially.

Marine Major General Smedley Butler claimed before a House committee, the McCormack-Dickestin Committee, later to be known as, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, that a group of wealthy business men had tried to recruit him to lead a plot to stage a coup against President Franklin Roosevelt and install a Fascist government. Butler testified that the group included several men who headed major American corporations, H.J. Heinz, Joseph Colgate, Clarence Birdseye, J.P. Morgan, the DuPont family and Prescott Bush who represented the Harriman’s. A British Broadcasting Company documentary, aired in July of 2007, claims that Prescott Bush was the leader of the coup attempt and had contacted Butler. Butler said before the committee that the conspirators were intent on using disgruntled veterans of W.W. 1, thousands of whom had marched on Washington demanding a post-war bonus for their service in 1932. Butler had encouraged the veterans in pressing their demands with the government, and was wildly popular among them. General Douglas MacCarthur then Army Chief of staff claimed that the veterans were Communist’s intent on overthrowing the Hoover Government.

Butler was to form a military force to take control of the government drawing upon the disaffected veteran community. Butler was then to install a fascist style regime to prevent the possibility of Franklin Roosevelt, along with his liberal New Deal policies, from assuming the Presidency in 1933. Butler’s testimony was suppressed, and no great alarm seemed to ensue. Transcripts of the hearing and Butler’s testimony are largely unavailable. The B.B.C. however broadcast some of Butler’s testimony during the show.

Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s cousin had called Averell Harriman’s banker father W. Averell Harriman, “cynical, and deeply corrupted, and an undesirable citizen.” Teddy Roosevelt tried unsuccessfully to thwart Harriman in his un-ethical business practices, but was unsuccessful. The plotters of the coup against Roosevelt were at the very least admirers of Hitler and Fascism.

In the early 1930’s Prescott Bush was already doing business with Hitler and his financier Fritz Thyssen through the Harriman brothers bank the U.B.C. That much is clearly known from a variety of records at the National Archives, the Library of Congress, and the Nuremburg trials. Prescott Bush and the leading industrialists of the time viewed Hitler’s National Socialist Party platform as a cure for the chaos and economic depression that had occurred in Germany under the Weimer Republic. Their investments in support of Hitler demonstrate at the very least their support of his policies. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies were decidedly liberal in comparison, and proved a threat to the laissez faire business practices of the day.

Hitler’s Fascist policies made sense to these men and it is not at all out of the question that they would have supported a military coup, as long as they could control the outcome.

March 10, 2008

Morgan Strong [send him mail], a former professor of Middle Eastern History at S.U.N.Y. Poughkeepsie, is a consultant to 60Minutes on the Middle East. He has written for Playboy, USA Today, Vanity Fair, and many other publications.

 Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com
Nothing could be better for the country that cancelling the 2008 election. Leave the office of the presidency empty.

I can see only one possible justification for having a president of the United States: to preside over the dismantling of the federal government. If you think this is a radical idea, think again. This is, in part, what people have long voted for, even if they never actually get it. I can hardly remember a time when a president has been elected who didn’t promise to get the government off our backs.

In one way, this agenda makes no sense, of course. You don’t hire a CEO to drive a company into bankruptcy. You don’t appoint a pastor to shrink a congregation. Why should we expect a president to dismantle the thing that gives him power and fame, and his allies huge wealth? Well, realistically, you can’t. But it’s the best hope we have within the framework of conventional politics.

The irony is that most presidents get elected on the prospect that they will curb power. It’s true of George Bush, who promised domestic cuts and a humble foreign policy. Clinton was also elected on the promise of middle-class tax cuts. We can go back and back and see it was true for the first Bush, for Reagan, for Carter, for Nixon, and so on.

For that matter, FDR himself denounced government spending during this first campaign. “I accuse the present administration [Hoover’s] of being the greatest spending administration in peace times in all our history,” and added, “On my part, I ask you very simply to assign to me the task of reducing the annual operating expenses of your national government.” He further denounced the government for “fostering regimentation without stint or limit.”

It was even true with George Washington, who had made innumerable speeches on the evil of tyranny only to take power and use it to the benefit of the powerful. Even Jefferson succumbed with his mistaken Louisiana Purchase, though he later entertained the possibility of a salutary breakup of the United States into many different countries.

And so on it goes. And it will happen again, despite all promises.

Folks, there is something wrong with this model of governance, not just current policy but the whole structure. We might even argue that the error goes back to the Constitution, a document that created new government powers unprecedented in Colonial history, and put the government in charge of restraining itself. It set up competitive divisions within government under the presumption that they would keep each other in check. Instead, they cooperated toward mutual expansion, especially after the federal power seizure called the Civil War.

Part of the problem dates to a core error within liberal theory: the belief that it was possible to create a government that was an extension of society, thanks to the relentless input of the people via democratic institutions. What this model did instead is enlist the public as part of their own destruction. And it created confusion about who precisely is to blame when things don’t work out. Under democracy, aren’t we the government? Aren’t we doing this to ourselves?

Let’s draw on another aspect of old-time liberal theory as a means of finding a way out of this mess. There are two additional contributions that liberalism made. It taught that society is capable of self-management, and that government is not the reason for order in society. Summing up the old liberal position, Patrick Henry said:

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.

 If we would be true to this line of thought, we should propose the unthinkable: cancel the election. This has never before been so urgent. Neither party will cut government in a way that is desperately needed. Instead, they offer a left- or right-tinged Americanized socialism or fascism. One promises domestic expansion and foreign reduction; the other promises foreign expansion and domestic reduction. The inevitable compromise: expand both domestically and internationally.

In addition, whatever the new president does will make our growing economic problems worse. The economic interventions they propose will add to our troubles, whether that means expanding inflation, taxes, controls, or debt. Another war is unthinkable, but probably inevitable. You can already detect it in the aggressive trajectory towards Iran. More business regulation can only dampen the fires of free enterprise, which are our saving grace today.

The best solution would be a government that would destroy itself. The second best solution would be a government that does nothing at all – then, at least, matters will not get worse. This is what canceling the election would do. It would introduce enough confusion and chaos to keep government from acting either domestically or internationally, which would be a wonderful thing.

There is also the matter of public will. We pretend as if the person who is elected enjoys the support of a majority. Nonsense. Most people who can vote do not vote, and who can blame them? Those who do vote are most likely voting against the other guy and not for a positive program. The person elected will enjoy a mandate of perhaps 5–10% of the population that actively supports the agenda. I say: make the new president their president but not our president.

It’s true that what I’m proposing constitutes a purely negative agenda. So let’s look to a positive goal. This country is too large to be governed from the center. It is long past time that it be broken into ever smaller pieces, even to the size of the world’s smallest nations. In that way, the US government will cease to be a menace to its citizens and to the world. Prosperity will be assured in the same way it always has: through peace and free trade with all.

But what about the Constitution? Let Jefferson speak: “We have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable…. But can they be made unchangeable?… I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to person, not to things.”

It is highly significant that Jefferson, when he wrote his own epitaph, wanted to be remembered for the Declaration of Independence, for the Virginia statute on religious freedom, and for founding the University of Virginia. That he was a two-term president is not listed.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Lew Rockwell Archives

 The real life of inventor Nikola Tesla was strange enough for fiction.

By Yvonne Zipp 

March 4, 2008 

Nikola Tesla’s biography reads like something created by Jules Verne and F. Scott Fitzgerald in a brainstorming session in an alternate universe. During his life, theories abounded about the inventor of alternating current (electricity as we know it) and radio. Some people thought he was literally from the future; others suspected Venus. There was even a rumor that he was a vampire. (It didn’t help that at one point Tesla claimed to be receiving messages from Mars.)Tesla’s last days are the subject of The Invention of Everything Else, an affectionate new novel by Samantha Hunt. Interplanetary theories aside, the electrical engineer was actually from a small village in Serbia, where at age 7, he created an engine that was powered by June bugs. As an adult, he showed up in New York at Thomas Edison’s factory with almost no money and a letter of introduction from Charles Batchelor, Edison’s factotum. It read simply: “I know two great men and you are one of them; the other is this young man.”

The grown-up Tesla tried to manufacture lightning and once nearly destroyed his New York neighborhood with an accidental, man-made earthquake.

“It is not uncommon for the police to show up at my doorstep, following up on neighborhood complaints of blue flashes or sixteen-foot-long bolts of lightning streaming from the roof,” Tesla tells visiting friends.

Also, he talked to pigeons. But instead of turning him into the prototypical mad scientist, Hunt creates a loving portrait – pigeons and all – of a brilliant, charming man who was almost entirely unfettered by practical considerations, self-interest, or universally accepted limits.

Tesla died in debt, having once ripped up a contract that would have made him the world’s first billionaire.

(Charles Westinghouse begged him to because it would have bankrupted the company.) His ideal was free energy for all; he found the notion of someone owning electricity repugnant.

“How could I own alternating current?” he asks Edison, who was unencumbered by altruistic concerns. “That’s like owning thunder or lightning. I can’t agree with that.”

Not surprisingly, given his ideals, money had a way of eluding Tesla, despite his brilliance. Edison cheated him out of $50,000, and Marconi took credit for wireless, even though Tesla held the patents.

“Even my inventions have forgotten who invented them,” he grouses at one point. From being a sought-out 19th-century bachelor, he becomes first a figure of ridicule (those messages from Mars didn’t exactly play well in the media, and at one point, Superman battles an evil scientist named Tesla) and then, after a while, Tesla was entirely forgotten.

These slights weigh heavily on the octogenarian who occupies Room 3327 at the Hotel New Yorker in 1943.

But “The Invention of Everything Else” isn’t a depressing read. Instead, it’s a love letter, to both Tesla and a bygone New York that seems cleaner than even in Rudy Giuliani’s wildest dreams.

The lonely man strikes up a gentle friendship with a curious chambermaid, Louisa, who likes to nose through guests’ belongings and discovers a treasure trove of memoirs and magical-looking devices when she snoops in 3327.

Through Louisa, we learn about Tesla’s childhood, his rivalry with Edison, and his friendship with poet Robert Underwood and his wife. That last was a rarity for Tesla, who believed that human interaction would distract him from his inventions.

“I can’t allow myself to have many feelings for humans besides curiosity. My life does not allow for it,” he explains.

Louisa, who is addicted to scary radio programs, lives with her father, Walter, a night watchman at the New York Public Library, who’s obsessively in love with her dead mother. When his best friend claims to have invented a working time machine, Walter becomes determined to travel to the past.

Also, Louisa strikes up a burgeoning romance with a man named Arthur Vaughn, who might be a mechanic and might possibly be from the future.

Hunt is trying to cram a lot into 250 pages. The combination of history and old-fashioned science fiction is a winning one, but at times, the plot of “The Invention of Everything Else” sags under the overload. Some subplots promise more than they deliver, such as one where government agents spy on Tesla and take Louisa into custody.

But in Nikola Tesla, Hunt has a character of such electric charm that his brilliance powers the novel.

Links to more Tesla stuff:

http://www.members.tripod.com/uforeview/teslasecretlabarticles.html 

http://www.tesla.org/

http://home.earthlink.net/~drestinblack/teslatoc.htm