by Paul Craig Roberts
October 10, 2015
from PaulCraigRoberts Website
The world is beginning to realize that a sea-change in world affairs occurred on September 28 when President Putin of Russia stated in his UN speech (below video) that Russia can no longer tolerate Washington’s vicious, stupid, and failed policies that have unleashed chaos, which is engulfing the Middle East and now Europe.
Full video translated transcription
Two days later, Russia took over the military situation in Syria and began the destruction of the Islamic State forces.
Perhaps among Obama’s advisors there are a few who are not drowning in hubris and can understand this sea-change. Sputnik news reports that some high-level security advisors to Obama have advised him to withdraw US military forces from Syria and give up his plan to overthrow Assad.
They advised Obama to cooperate with Russia in order to stop the refugee flow that is overwhelming Washington’s vassals in Europe.
The influx of unwanted peoples is making Europeans aware of the high cost of enabling US foreign policy. Advisors have told Obama that the idiocy of the neoconservatives’ policies threaten Washington’s empire in Europe.
Several commentators, such as Mike Whitney and Stephen Lendman, have concluded, correctly, that there is nothing that Washington can do about Russian actions against the Islamic State.
The neoconservatives’ plan for a UN no-fly zone over Syria in order to push out the Russians is a pipedream. No such resolution will come out of the UN. Indeed, the Russians have already established a de facto no-fly zone.
Putin, without issuing any verbal threats or engaging in any name-calling, has decisively shifted the power balance, and the world knows it.
Washington’s response consists of name-calling, bluster and more lies, some of which is echoed by some of Washington’s ever more doubtful vassals. The only effect is to demonstrate Washington’s impotence.
If Obama has any sense, he will dismiss from his government the neoconservative morons who have squandered Washington’s power, and he will focus instead on holding on to Europe by working with Russia to destroy, rather than to sponsor, the terrorism in the Middle East that is overwhelming Europe with refugees.
If Obama cannot admit a mistake, the United States will continue to lose credibility and prestige around the world.
by Mike Whitney
December 25, 2009
from GlobalResearch Website
| Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research. |
Mike Whitney –President
Barack Obamarecently visited Dover Air Force Base where he was photographed with the flag-draped coffins of soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Why did Obama do this and what was your reaction?
Cindy Sheehan – I think Obama did this as a publicity stunt and used the dead troops (that he was responsible for killing) as props to show that he “cares” about the troops. This stunt was in the middle of the “discussions” about how many more troops to send to Afghanistan (after he has already sent about 35,000).
It made me sick.
MW – On Thursday, on orders from President Obama, the US military launched cruise missile attacks on Yemen which were followed by raids by the Yemeni Security forces.
An estimated 120 people were killed.
Obama’s actions indicate that he accepts
the Bush Doctrine, that he thinks the US has the right to assassinate people without due process on the mere suspicion they may be linked to a terrorist organization.
- Is Obama right?
- Does the US need to be more aggressive in the “post 9-11″ world?
Cindy Sheehan – And Obama reiterated this doctrine during his Nobel acceptance speech–which some are calling the “Obama Doctrine” now.
No, I do not agree with these extra-legal executions. I do not agree that the CIA can be jury, judge and executioner in Pakistan and indiscriminately kill people with their drones.
I adamantly disagree with the doctrine of “pre-emptive” strikes or invasions and I don’t agree that they keep Americans “safer” and, even if they did, innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire and we are creating enemies that we will never be able to kill.
MW – Hugo Chavez has been demonized in the US media as anti-American and a dictator. You’ve met Chavez and seen first-hand what’s going on in Venezuela.
- What’s your take?
- Is Chavez a dictator or does he believe in democracy?
- Have his policies been helpful or harmful to the poor and illiterate?
Cindy Sheehan – Well, statistically, illiteracy and poverty rates have improved since Chavez has been president of Venezuela – although, it is still a very poor country.
I think we should always take governments and politicians with a grain of salt, or with high suspicion. But for a politician, I do think that Chavez cares about the people of Venezuela and democracy movements in South America. His actions have proven that and he has been pretty courageous in trying to spread populism and socialism. He has supported other leaders, like Morales of Bolivia, who have been attacked and marginalized by the ruling class.
Is Chavez a dictator? He’s as much a dictator as Obama is. Chavez has put constitutional reforms before the public and has survived CIA coup and recall attempts.
I am sure there is always hanky-panky in any election, but Jimmy Carter has certified elections.
MW – Here’s a poem by an Iraqi blogger named Layla Anwar, which pretty well sums up the anger and anguish felt by many Iraqis:
“Come and see our overflowing morgues and find our little ones for us…
You may find them in this corner or the other, a little hand poking out, pointing out at you…
Come and search for them in the rubble of your “surgical” air raids, you may find a little leg or a little head… pleading for your attention.
Come and see them amassed in the garbage dumps, scavenging morsels of food…
Come and see, come…”
(“Flying Kites” Layla Anwar)
How important to you is it that thepeople who are responsible for the destruction of Iraq and the slaughtering of over 1 million Iraqis
be brought to justice?
Cindy Sheehan –In my opinion, accountability for war crimes committed on the people of Iraq/Afghanistan and, now Pakistan, is imperative.The US has been committing war crimes for at least the last 100 years (off the continent) and none of our leaders have ever been held accountable and that’s one of the reasons that the empire is able to keep rolling.
I also believe that the way to the rest of the world’s heart is for American leaders to be held accountable.
MW – The senate just passed the $636 billion Pentagon budget on Friday which extends the controversial
US Patriot Act. Obama is expected to sign the bill sometime this week.
Why is America trying to trying to “liberate” Iraq and Afghanistan, when it is spying on its people at home?
Cindy Sheehan –First of all, “liberation” was not a goal of the invasions.We,the gullible, were told thatwe were going into Afghanistan to get Osama and Iraq because Saddam had WMD and a connection to al Qaeda. When those rationales were provenfalse, we were then told that it was toliberate the people. Now in Afghanistan, we are told we are “protecting the women.”The
phony war on terrorhas been used to steal our liberties in a full-frontal assault since
9-11and Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT ACT when he was a Senator, and voted for the
FISA modernization act, which gave broad authority to the government to
spy on our electronic communicationsand gave telecom companies immunity.
I not only see this as passive stealing of our liberties, but the United Police States of America is increasing in physical oppression, also. I’ll be interested to see how
the Police Statewill handle my new action:Peace of the Action.
MW – You know a lot of people across the country. What’s the mood among Obama supporters? Have they thrown in the towel already or do they still think he’ll turn out to be the leader they hoped he would be?
Cindy Sheehan – I lost a lot of friends when B.O. became president and it was a lonely 6 months after he was elected.
I wrote a new book called Myth America (short title) and I started to travel around the country in April doing book events. For the first time since my activism started, people walked out on my presentations because I was telling them that it was the system – not the person who infests the White House. However, by the end of my book tour in August, the crowds were growing and more enthusiastic and less gaga-eyed over Obama.
Then I started touring again in September and the discontent is growing. I am happy about that.
The ones that upset me the most are the so-called leaders of the “progressive” movement like Tom Hayden, CODEPINK and Michael Moore who very enthusiastically endorsed, worked for, voted for, and raised money for Obama, and NOW are beginning to speak out against his carnage, when in fact, Obama has always been very pro-war. Once the horse is out of the barn, it’s hard to get him back in. The movement should never have given him a “chance.”
Things are so much worse in foreign policy almost a year into his regime.
MW – The media has had a tough time dealing with Cindy Sheehan. On the one hand, they’ve done everything in their power to glorify the wars and the men and women who serve in uniform. On the other hand, they’ve gone to great lengths to discredit the mother of a soldier who died fighting in America’s wars.
Why is the media so afraid of
Cindy Sheehan?
Cindy Sheehan –Because I tellinconvenient truths. War is not pretty, ever, but unnecessary wars and needless carnage are even worse.Also, I realized very early on that the problem didn’t rest with a particular political party, but it’s a systemic problem and the corporate media is part of it.
MW –Here is a very long question.
It’s a quote from Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo:
“I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease – the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence…
For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.
What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
(Obama Nobel acceptance speech)
This is a very disturbing quote.
What do you think Obama is trying to say here?
Cindy Sheehan –Like I said in my speech in Oslo,the ruling classis telling us by giving Obama that award, and in his speech that “War is Peace” and the only conceivable way to peace is through war.
What is also disturbing, is the kudos he got from the left-right establishment over that speech. Disturbing, yet predictable.
MW – Last question. This is an excerpt from an article you wrote more than a year ago:
“The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful.
Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most…
Good-bye America… you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.”
Do you feel the same way now as when you wrote that, or do you see any glimmer of hope that the country is beginning to change directions?
Cindy Sheehan – I wrote this in May of 2007 when I resigned from the movement – I still believe that the people have to wake up on their own, but we can give them some gentle shakes.
I am still sacrificing for the enlightenment and am still trying.
It was a short retirement…
by SARTRE
January 15, 2012
from Bart Website
| SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. SARTRE is the publisher of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Contact batr@batr.org |
We, the heirs of the Third Reich,
have been an integral part of the American Government
since Patton crossed the Rhine.
Author Unknown
American Fascism did not start with World War II.
Before Operation Paperclip, the codename under which the US intelligence and military services extricated scientists from Germany, during and after the final stages of the conflict, the annals of internal despotism were well established. With the open door policy for German engineering, the political ideology of state worship was bound to travel across the Atlantic.
The Pampas of Argentina or the backwaters of Paraguay were the preferred location for those who openly professed their reprehensible loyalty to the Führer principle. However, do not blame all those ex-Nazis for selecting the shores of the Americas for their new domicile, their seeds were planted long ago in the offices of Wall and Broad Streets.
Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will saga shares more, than what one wants to admit, about the dark side of American History.
Do not be confused. National Socialism is an abhorrent notion to most Americans.
Nevertheless, the political foundation of that false ideology is based upon pure Fascism forged in a marriage of the Corporate/State that produces this demented offspring. The systematic destruction of the essential purpose and motivation for the American Revolution is undeniable with any objective examination of the regretful legacy of domestic tyranny.
This record of monocracy is one of a criminal class, as opposed to the iron fist of a single man. If you belief this is an erroneous assessment, consider the following chronicle.
From the beginning of the Republic, the Federalists conspired for the illegal passage of their central government constitution in order to form a competing world empire with their British cousins.
Their leader was Alexander Hamilton, who championed making individual states subservient to the original crony capitalists.
When the Father of our Country, George Washington admonished about the dangers on entangling alliances, the world was warned that the drive towards independent liberty was compromised under this new Federal system.
When Andrew Jackson rallied frontier populism against the establishment elites of his era, you had an opportunity to restore some of the former glory of the Revolution of 1776. The conflict over the abolishment of the National Bank symbolizes the eternal struggle that continues to this very day.
The Manifest Destiny of the U.S.-Mexican War demonstrated just how far the country strayed from the fundamental concept of independence from England.
The expansionistic campaign had more in common with the Crown than the Boston Tea Party.
The early 19th century fascists looked to their next defender Abraham Lincoln, the lawyer for the railroad corporatist cabal and the worst of all despotic presidents, to complete the task.
Mark Dankof cites Thomas DiLorenzo’s work in the article, Lincoln in Fort Sumter, False Flags, and The Empire’s Coming Crusade.
- Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves.
- Myth #2: Lincoln’s war “saved the Union.”
- Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights.
- Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution.
- Myth #5: Lincoln was a “great humanitarian” who had “malice toward none.”
- Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery.
The significance of the War of Northern Aggression is that the principle of independent sovereign states under the precepts of constitutional law died.
With the prevention of secession, the liberty of a voluntary union was betrayed for the rule, under a loyalty oath, to an Amerikan Reich. The next False Flag excuse was the Spanish-American War and the “Remember the Maine!” slogan that pushed the country into a “Pacific Imperium”.
Those NeoCons, like Senator John McCain, who revere Theodore Roosevelt as a model for imperialist jingoism, draw their psychopathic lusts from the same bloodline as Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler.
World War I produced the infamous Woodrow Wilson internationalist treason.
No longer will America be a society governed by elected representatives. The only coup to come out of his administration was won by the banksters. The fate of a proud people, sealed with the creation of,
- the Federal Reserve
- the establishment of the income tax
- the permanent foreign military intervention abroad,
..is the basis for the final destruction of the country and the horrors that befell our nation in the last century.
World War II inflicted the Franklin D. Roosevelt curse that guaranteed the imposition of socialism on the American people. How ironic that the Hitler bogyman’s regime, the scourge of Western Civilization and the reason for defending democracy, ultimately lead to similar collectivist policies, now adopted in the United States.
Just look to the ignominious involvement of Prescott Bush’s involvement with the funding of Adolph Hitler.
Even FAUX news cannot hide the relationship in Bush’s Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler.
“Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press.”
So what can and should a “reasonable man” conclude from these examples from history?
The essential lesson is that the pristine fairy tale of the federal government’s noble role as defender of righteousness, that politicians want to accept and often die for, is a fictional myth.
Power politics always serves the interests of the banking elites, who control the political process, own the financial capital and manipulate the media viewpoint of events. This reality is pure fascism.
You live under this system, so grow up, and admit it… it is the lamentable truth.
Barry Soetoro, aka, Barack Hussein Obama fits the fascist mold to the tee. In the above video, Obama and Holder taking on Arizona’s SB1070, the treachery of his administration is evident.
The eradication of States Rights is standard policy coming out of this Federal governance regime. The separation ethnic dictates of the Nazi hooligans seem to contrast with the multicultural amnesty immigration ordinances that the Holder DoJ office fosters.
However, if you look closely, both share a parallel distain for the rights of indigenous citizens.
The Third Reich wanted to export their undesirables, while the Fourth Reich wants to destroy the natural citizenry by importing unwanted illegals. A fair read of the State of Arizona SB 1070 Bill indicates that individual states are under attack from a federal tyranny in the same way that the German people were subjugated by the Swastika.
Ian Gurney offers this comparison:
“Now let’s take a quick look at Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s as the Nazis reared their ugly heads. Here was a country that was financially crippled with a massive budget deficit owing billions of dollars to the rest of the world. Just like the USA.
In the 1930’s Germany was a country where the burning of the Reichstag, engineered by Hitler and his henchmen, was used to create external enemies and to exert internal control over the German people. Hitler then used the media to lie, frighten and deceive the population, allowing a bunch of vicious, extreme, right wing megalomaniacs to gain power. Just like the USA.
In the 1930’s Hitler was surrounded by a group of unelected officials whose sole objective was to take control of Germany for their own ends and with the use of their military might, take control of the assets and prosperity of other, weaker countries. Just like the USA.
In 1939 Hitler embarked on a series of pre-emptive attacks on sovereign nations in the name of “freeing the people” of that country. Just like the USA.
In 1940 the German hierarchy started building special “camps” or detention centers in which to incarcerate and eventually execute those people considered to be “against” their regime. Just like the USA.”
The Fourth Reich did not originate with Operation Overcast, the initiate name for Operation Paperclip.
The classic book Fourth Reich of the Rich, by Des Griffin deserves another read.
Mr. Griffin states,
“Some 150 years ago, in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln acknowledged the fact that,
“no foreign power or combination of foreign powers could by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.”
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected?
I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up from among us, it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die of suicide.”
Are we committing national suicide? Webster’s Dictionary (1828) defines suicide as:
“Self murder; the act of designedly destroying one’s own life.”
For that to be true on a national scale, the decisions leading up to our national self-destruction would, of necessity, have to be made by those who govern the country Congress, or “the government.”
Much of the German population was captivated by Hitler.
The “presstitute” Goebbels’ media holds out Obama as a shining example. His manners are a composition of every tyranny to grace the scorched earth of despotic government.
Will the America public come to their senses and make war against this Amerikana version of the Fourth Reich? You need not look for the Boys from Brazil to find today’s Nazi’s.
They do their business in New York City, run their international institutes from London and order their bombing from Washington, DC.
Sieg heil!to the New World Order is the modern definition of national suicide.
by Tom Burghardt
January 17, 2010
from GlobalResearch Website
In the wake of the Flight 253 provocation, over-hyped terrorism panics, and last year’s Big Pharma and media-engineered hysteria over the H1N1 flu pandemic, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13528 on January 11.
Among other things, the Executive Order (EO) established a Council of Governors, an “advisory panel” chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a “national emergency.”
According to the White House press release, the ten member, bipartisan Council was created,
“to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards.”
“When appointed” the announcement continues, “the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”
Clearly designed to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of maneuvers by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and a modicum of public accountability.
One consequence of moves to “synchronize and integrate” state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would be to place them under the effective control of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), created in 2002 by Bushist legislators in both capitalist parties under the pretext of imperialism’s endless “War on Terror.”
At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called USNORTHCOM’s launch,
“the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946.”
The real-world consequences of those changes weren’t long in coming.
Following their criminal inaction during 2005’s Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, the Bush regime sought, but failed, to seize control of depleted Gulf Coast National Guard units, the bulk of which had been sent to Iraq along with equipment that might have aided the recovery. Bush demanded that then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco sign over control of the Guard as well as state and local police units as the blood price for federal assistance.
At the height of the crisis, Bush cited presidential prerogatives for doing so under the Insurrection Act, a repressive statute which authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to “suppress rebellion.”
How the plight of citizens engulfed by Katrina’s flood waters could be twisted into an act of “rebellion” was achieved when Orwellian spin doctors, aided and abetted by a compliant media, invented a new criminal category to cover traumatized New Orleans residents:
“Drowning while Black.”
Fast forward five years.
Given the serious implications such proposals would have for a functioning democracy, the media’s deafening silence on Obama’s Executive Order is hardly surprising. Like their role as cheerleaders in the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, media self-censorship tell us much about the state of affairs in “new normal” America.
Like his predecessors in the Oval Office, stretching back to the 1960s with Pentagon “civil disturbance” plans such as Cable Splicer and Garden Plot, both of which are continuously updated, our “change” President will forge ahead and invest the permanent National Security bureaucracy with unprecedented power.
Under color of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, an unsavory piece of Bushist legislative detritus,
“The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.”
The toothless Council, whose Executive Director will be designated by the Secretary of Defense no less,
“shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council.”
Will such a Council have veto power over administration deliberations? Hardly.
They are relegated,
“to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security” and “the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.”
Additional entities covered by the EO with whom the Governors Council will “exchange views” include,
- the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement
- the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs
- the Commander, United States Northern Command
- the Chief, National Guard Bureau
- the Commandant of the Coast Guard
- other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense
- appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security
In other words, right from the get-go, the Council will serve as civilian cover for political decisions made by the Executive Branch and the security apparat.
EO 13528 continues,
“Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
- matters involving the National Guard of the various States
- homeland defense
- civil support
- synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States
- other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”
When news first broke last summer of Obama’s proposal to expand the military’s authority to respond to domestic disasters, it was opposed by the National Governors Association (NGA).
Congressional Quarterly reported that a letter sent on behalf of the NGA opposed creation of the Council on grounds that it,
“would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors’ constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens,” Govs. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., and Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., wrote.
According to their August letter to Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, Douglas and Manchin III argued that,
“without assigning a governor tactical control” of military forces during a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake, or an unnatural disaster such as a terrorist attack or other mass casualty event, the “strong potential exists for confusion in mission, execution and the dilution of governors’ control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander.”
With slim prospects of congressional authorization for the scheme, in fact the 2008 language was removed from subsequent Defense spending legislation, other means were required.
Playing bureaucratic hardball with the governors, this has now been accomplished by presidential fiat, further eroding clear constitutional limits on Executive Branch power.
These maneuvers as I have previously written, have very little to do with responding to a catastrophic emergency. Indeed, EO 13528 is only the latest iteration of plans to expand the National Security State’s writ and as such, have everything to do with decades-old Continuity of Government (COG) programs kept secret from Congress and the American people.
Derided by neocons, neoliberals and other corporatists as a quaint backwater for “conspiracy theorists” railing against “FEMA concentration camps,” Continuity of Government, and the nexus of “civil support” programs that have proliferated like noxious weeds are no laughing matter.
Indeed, even members of Congress are considered “unauthorized parties” denied access “to information on COG plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities,” according to a Pentagon document published by the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks, as are the classified annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20).
In a new twist on administration promises of transparency and open government, even the redacted version of these documents have been removed from the White House web site.
As Antifascist Calling previously reported (see: “Vigilant Shield 09: A Cover for Illegal Domestic Operations?”), the Congressional Research Service issued a 46-page report in 2008 that provided details on the COG-related National Exercise Program, a “civil support” operation that war games various disaster scenarios.
Among other things, the document outlines the serious domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills.
CRS researchers pointed to the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 (EO 12656) that,
“directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises.”
EO 12656 defines a national security emergency as “as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”
Such programs, greatly expanded by the Bush-era Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), also removed from the White House web site, established,
“a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises.”
CRS avers,
“The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities.”
The Defense Department’s role during such emergencies were intended to focus “principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events.”
DoD would play a “significant role” in the overall response. Such murky definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with a potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporate partners.
The primary DoD entity responsible for “civil support,” a focus of Obama’s EO is USNORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. However, as with almost everything relating to COG and current plans under EO 13528 that propose to “synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities,” USNORTHCOM’s role is shrouded in secrecy.
As researcher Peter Dale Scott revealed in 2008, when Congressman Peter DeFazio, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney sought access to classified COG annexes, their request was denied by the White House.
Scott wrote:
“DeFazio’s inability to get access to the NSPD Annexes is less than reassuring. If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.”
One hammer blow followed another.
In 2008, Army Times reported, that the,
“3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they’re training for the same mission – with a twist – at home.”
Analyst Michel Chossudovsky commented,
“What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is the presumption that North America could, in the case of a national emergency, constitute a ‘war theater’ thereby justifying the deployment of combat units.”
According to Chossudovsky,
“The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressing civil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement.”
“It is noteworthy, the
World Socialist Web Sitecommented, “that the deployment of US combat troops ‘as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters’… coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s.”
“Justified as a response to terrorist threats,” socialist criticBill Van Aukenaverred, “the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America’s borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability.”
Since USNORTHCOM’s deployment of a combat brigade on U.S. soil, the capitalist crisis has deepened and intensified.
With unemployment at a post-war high and the perilous economic and social conditions of the working class growing grimmer by the day, EO 13258 is a practical demonstration of ruling class consensus when it comes to undermining the democratic rights of the American people.
After all, where the defense of wealth and privileges are concerned corporate thugs and war criminals have no friends, only interests…
by Greg Jaffe and David Nakamura
September 20, 2016
from WashingtonPost Website
President Obama addresses
the General Debate of the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly
on Sept. 20 at the U.N.’s headquarters in New York.
(Justin Lane/EPA)
UNITED NATIONS
President Obama, in his final speech to the United Nations Tuesday, made an impassioned plea on behalf of a liberal world order that he admitted was under growing threat from wars in the Middle East and rising nationalism at home and in Europe.
Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly for the eighth and last time as president, Obama sought to rise above the conflicts of the moment and outline a future of international cooperation, stressing the importance of the global liberal institutions formed after World War II, including the United Nations.
“The world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before,” Obama said.
But he acknowledged a growing global unease, fueled by terrorism and economic anxiety, which has led some Western politicians, including Republican nominee Donald Trump, to call for tough, new restrictions on immigration and global trade.
Obama often seemed to be speaking simultaneously to history and to an American electorate facing a historic choice.
The problems plaguing the world called for a “course correction,” the president said. He then catalogued the crises that have exposed “deep fault lines in the existing international order,” describing the,
- financial disruptions caused by globalization
- chaos in the Middle East
- massive refugee flows into Europe
Russia, China under fire in Obama’s last U.N address as president
President Obama called on several nations with which he’s had contentious relations to abide by international rules and do more to improve cooperation on a global level, while speaking at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 20.
(Reuters)
“Our societies are filled with uncertainty and unease and strife,” he said. “Despite enormous progress, as people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface.”
Obama rejected the strongman, top-down model pushed by many of his international rivals, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
In the same breath he criticized those who push religious fundamentalism, aggressive nationalism and a “crude populism” that promises to return citizens to a,
“better and simpler age free of outside contamination” – a not-so-veiled reference to Trump’s campaign promise to “Make America Great Again.”
“We cannot dismiss these visions,” Obama said. “They are powerful.”
[Clinton stresses U.S. ‘resolve’ in terrorism fight while Trump promises to get ‘tough’]
Throughout his presidency, Obama has stressed the importance of diplomacy and international organizations, such as the United Nations. From his earliest days as a presidential hopeful he has preached the importance of reaching out to long-standing enemies.
Obama used his speech Tuesday to try to cement that legacy, pointing to his administration’s efforts to restore relations with Cuba and Burma, and its historic agreement with Iran last year.
“When Iran agrees to accept constraints on its nuclear program, that enhances global security and enhances Iran’s ability to work with other nations,” Obama said.
The days leading up to Obama’s last United Nations address, like much of his presidency, were dominated by concerns about war and terrorism.
Obama’s remarks came one day after a manhunt led to the capture of a suspect linked to bombings in New York and New Jersey and hours after a tenuous cease-fire in Syria seemed to have collapsed. There were reports that Syrian or Russian aircraft had struck an aid convoy near Aleppo, just days after planes from the U.S.-led alliance mistakenly struck Syrian troops.
Obama steered clear of these topics in his speech, focusing on his broader vision for preserving the international order.
The president spoke of the economic unease caused by globalization, which has manifested itself during the presidential race in widespread opposition to international trade deals.
Such agreements, Obama said, could bolster labor unions in the developing world and ensure that profits of the global economy are more ‘evenly’ distributed.
“A world in which
1 percent of humanitycontrols as much wealth as the other 99 percent will never be stable,” Obama said.
He called for more vigilance to eliminate tax havens, fight climate change and curb the “excesses of capitalism.”
“A society that asks less of oligarchs than ordinary citizens will rot from within,” he said.
At times, Obama’s remarks were directed at his rivals in Russia and China who have in recent years forcefully pressed an alternative to his vision.
Obama dismissed suggestions by Russia that the West had played a role in the uprisings in Ukraine, insisting that the Ukrainians were fighting for universal principles and a more responsive government.
“They took to the streets because their leadership was for sale and they had no recourse,” Obama said.
He called for more work to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, an unfulfilled goal of his presidency, and for more diplomacy to try to halt the bloodshed in Syria.
He insisted China’s buildup in the South China Sea – which he dismissed as the “militarization of a few rocks” – could not provide a lasting solution to the territorial disputes there.
In other moments, Obama seemed to be addressing the American electorate and the deep divisions that have been revealed by the presidential election.
He rejected the idea that a border wall could block the spread of disease, in the form of the Zika virus, or terrorism.
“The world is too small for us to be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies,” Obama said.
The president’s references to the futility of walls drew some chuckles in the General Assembly hall among world leaders who picked up the reference to Trump.
Near the end of his remarks and in a U.S.-sponsored refugee summit following his speech, Obama challenged his fellow leaders to do more to help the growing diaspora of refugees across the globe.
“We are facing a crisis of epic proportions,” Obama said. “I am here today, I called this summit because this crisis is one of the most urgent tests of our time.”
Many of the world’s refugees come from three countries – Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia – besieged by long wars with no end in sight.
“The mentality that allows for violence with impunity is something we cannot excuse, and collectively we continue to make excuses,” Obama said.
“We all know that
what is happening in Syria, for example, is unacceptable and we are not as unified as we should be in pushing to make it stop.”
The White House said it had secured $650 million in pledges from the private sector and Obama has promised to boost the number of refugees the United States accepts next year to 110,000, a 30 percent increase from 2016.
The president concluded his U.N. General Assembly speech by returning, as he often did in the earliest days of his presidency, to his remarkable personal story.
“My own family is made up of the flesh and blood and traditions and cultures and faiths from a lot of different parts of the world,” Obama said.
Obama cited his story as evidence of the existence of universal ideals and principles that are increasingly under assault in a globalizing world.
“I can best serve my own people; I can best look after my own daughters by making sure that my actions seek what is right for all people and all children,” Obama said.
‘America Must Surrender Sovereignty
…and Embrace One World Government’ – Said Obama
by Kurt Nimmo
September 22, 2016
from BlackListedNews Website
Earlier this week Barack Obama delivered his final United Nations speech.
In addition to praising the banksters loan shark operations run out of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Obama called for “global integration,” code for a one-world government.
“I believe that at this moment we all face a choice.
We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration. Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion,” he said.
In short, Obama has renewed the call to end national sovereignty.
Full Obama’s final 2016 speech at United Nations…
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), often referred to as the “real State Department,” prefers to call it a transition to “global governance” or multilateralism.
In 2012, as the CFR unveiled the Council of Councils and its “Challenges for Global Governance in 2013,” Nicholas West deconstructed the globalist agenda.
In addition to eroding national sovereignty through the promotion of “free trade” deals and treaties, the CFR has pushed behind the scenes for economic collapse, humanitarian intervention, destabilization of the Middle East, geopolitical reorganization, and control of the internet.
“The agenda of global governance exists, and the move toward a one world government is being executed.
The solutions being discussed at think tank conferences in a wide range of disciplines from geopolitics, to science, to health, to economics and communications are all beginning to coalesce into an overall agenda of centralized control.
This fusion is manifesting at an accelerated pace in tandem with the rapid awakening of humanity to its condition of increasing servitude,” writes West.
The current globalism in trade – from NAFTA, CAFTA, and AFTA to the impending TPP – serve as a template for the ongoing effort to globalize nations and destroy national sovereignty, according to Richard Haass, current CFR president and the former Special Assistant to George H. W. Bush and National Security Council Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs.
In 2010 Haass wrote,
“states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm.
Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.”
Haass cited the globalist contrivance of manmade climate change.
“Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.”
Obama read directly from the globalist script when he mentioned climate change during his speech at the United Nations.
“And that’s why we need to follow through on our efforts to combat climate change.
If we don’t act boldly, the bill that could come due will be mass migrations, and cities submerged and nations displaced, and food supplies decimated, and conflicts born of despair.
The Paris Agreement gives us a framework to act, but only if we scale up our ambition.
And there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the agreement into force, and helping poorer countries leapfrog destructive forms of energy,”
Bernie Suarez writes climate change is one of six manufactured problems utilized by the elite.
“Problem-reaction-solution, the Hegelian Dialectic is that process the globalist ruling class have chosen to use as the primary tool to constantly change society in the direction they want it to go.
They manufacture a problem, focus on that problem, then sell the solution. The solution is always the very thing that drives their plan forward.”
Specifically, the global elite,
- created the disruptive force of the Islamic State
- they are pushing for the implementation of a militarized police state apparatus
- have orchestrated revolutions
- rolled out a propaganda campaign designed to promote world conflict and a possible Third World War
- have engendered disease hysteria that provides a backdrop for medical tyranny
The United Nations speech was Obama’s swan song and a final tribute to the global elite…
If Hillary Clinton is elected in November, we can expect a seamless transition and a continuation of the CFR’s agenda.
