We've had a great time bringing local and national issues to our listeners for the past 3 years, but given recent developments at WPVM and MAIN, we have decided that it's time to move on.
We're going to take a well-deserved break, but we have plans to begin an online podcast version of the show in the near future.
Keep an eye on this page to see where the Making Progress Team goes next.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Canada Gets it
Not that anyone is going to do anything about it, but it's gratifying that someone finally challenged the whitewashing of what really happened on 9/11. Of course, this didn't happen on Capitol hill, but rather in Canada's House of Commons on June 10, 2008.
But someone on the public record is finally speaking up and citing the testimony of demolition experts who concluded long ago that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by explosives. (See all versions of the documentary Loose Change if you still think this is tin foil hat stuff.)
New Democratic Party Deputy House Leader Libby Davies read Parliamentary Petition signed by over 500 Canadians demanding a new 9/11 investigation. The Petition reads as follows:
Thank you MP Davies! Sure it was symbolic, but more challenges to the 9-11 commission report should be in the public record.
But someone on the public record is finally speaking up and citing the testimony of demolition experts who concluded long ago that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by explosives. (See all versions of the documentary Loose Change if you still think this is tin foil hat stuff.)
New Democratic Party Deputy House Leader Libby Davies read Parliamentary Petition signed by over 500 Canadians demanding a new 9/11 investigation. The Petition reads as follows:
We, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following:
THAT, scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. This evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by demolition explosives and that the official theory of the towers collapsing from the airplanes and the ensuing fires is irrefutably false.
We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001. This event brought Canada into the so-called "War on Terror," it changed our domestic and foreign policies for the worse, and it will continue to have negative consequences for us all if we refuse to look at the facts.
THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to:
(1) Immediately launch its own investigation into the events of 9/11/2001 on behalf of the 24 Canadian citizens murdered in New York City.
(2) Act lawfully on the findings of its own investigation by helping to pursue the guilty parties in the international courts.
Committed to truth and accountability
vancouver911truth.org
Thank you MP Davies! Sure it was symbolic, but more challenges to the 9-11 commission report should be in the public record.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Price of Oil Has Nothing To Do With Supply and Demand
Runaway gas prices have less to do with supply and demand and more to do with Wall Street and Iran.
One of my clients sent me a disturbing email from a group called “American Solutions for Winning the Future”. First off, I know that Bush expects us to accept his war against the concept of Terrorism - are we expanding the war to include the future, too?
In any case, the group’s mantra is Drill here - drill now - pay less, and their website features a video from their front man and king of gratuitous violence, Chuck Norris. What’s sad and laughable at the same time is that this myopic group actually thinks that if we start filling Alaska full of holes, it’s going to immediately lower gas prices.
It’s a cheap ploy to exploit peoples’ anger and fear over pump prices to further enrich the pockets of oil men - and studies show that this solution might lower the price of gas a few cents - but it will take 2-3 years to accomplish.
We need a better solution than that. Though some analysts are selling the pipe dream that gas prices are about to top out, and will soon ease off, Alexey Miller, the chief executive of Kremlin-owned Gazprom, the world’s largest energy company, predicts that oil will hit $250 per barrel “in the foreseeable future”.
BLAME CHINA
As gas skyrockets, affecting the price of everything we rely on to survive - food, clothing, electricity - that’s right - USA today just reported that thanks to the price of oil, electric bills will be going up 20-30% across the nation.
Most of these reports cite the growth of industry and higher standard of living in China as the reason for the squeezin. This excuse is as simplistic as it is inaccurate.
And it sure ain’t supply and demand. While it’s true that the oil companies are notorious for shutting down functional, profitable refineries to curtail supply and boost market price, how do you explain the current spike in prices when Americans have cut back on driving almost 5% compared to last year - which adds up to over 11 billion less miles traveled per month.
Writing for Information Clearing House, Paul Craig Roberts cites three more likely reasons that the price of gas has exploded.
1) The value of the US dollar on international markets has plummeted. 5-6 years ago, 1 US dollar was equal in value to 1 Euro. I just checked today’s rates, and it now takes $1.54 to buy one Euro, which means our dollar has lost over 35% of its value in just 5 years! If the price of oil had stayed constant, Americans would still be paying 35% more at the pump just to account for the weakened dollar.
To compound the problem, international traders are demanding Americans pay surcharges larger than the 35% that would equal the dollar’s current decrease in value, because they are hedging their bets. That means, they expect the dollar’s value to keep plummeting, and they want to be paid more up front to compensate for future shortfalls.
And as more oil markets cease trading in US dollars in favor of more stable currency like the Euro, the dollar won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.
2) The Federal Reserve knows we’re in big trouble, so they’re pouring out liquidity to try and stabilize our currency. Those funds are financing speculation in oil futures contracts.
Basically, the investor class made a fortune on the subprime housing bubble, and now that it has collapsed, they’ve created a new bubble they can profit on. That bubble is oil futures. Investors are buying up future oil contracts, betting that the price of oil will continue to skyrocket. But oil prices are skyrocketing due because the traders are driving the prices up with their investments. It’s a Catch 22 that could only happen thanks to the right-wing politicians who deregulated every market they could get their hands on.
This phenomenon could get a lot worse if investment firms create derivatives based on oil futures and churn those debts into assets as they did with the mortgage market. Hopefully, the oil bubble will burst before that happens, or we’ll look back on the current downturn as the small hiccup before the big crash.
3) Tension in the Middle East. This leads me right back to my favorite subject - Iran. Every time that Bush or Cheney or an Israeli politician rattles their sabres in Iran’s direction, oil speculators panic and the price of oil jumps dramatically. Last week, when Israel mentioned that an attack on Iran is “inevitable”, the price per barrel jumped $8 in an instant. BuzzFlash’s Dave Lindorff predicts that an attack on Iran will send oil almost immediately to past $300 per barrel. That would bring the US, as well as most of the rest of the world, to an economic standstill.
IRAN AGAIN?
Since the price of oil is directly related to Iran, we should all be paying close attention to the latest developments between the US, Israel and Iran. Last Spring and Summer, I was raising alarm bells that an attack on Tehran was imminent. I may have to give back the tinfoil hat award, because it turns out I was right.
According former deputy asst. secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs J. Scott Carpenter, Dick Cheney was hell bent for implementing a plan the Bush admin. hatched in December of 2007 that would launch airstrikes on Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases, but was stopped by the Pentagon. The Joint Chiefs knew full well that once a limited airstrike was initiated, it would escalate into full-scale war across the entire Middle East. Now that General David Petraeus is in charge of military operations in the Middle East, the Pentagon is no longer an obstacle.
Some DoD officials even went so far to admit that thanks to the occupation of Iraq, our military effectiveness has been compromised to the point that Iran has more and better options for hitting back at the United States than the US military has for hitting Iran.
So we came closer to attacking Iran last year than most Americans know. And given recent events, we may be right back in the same position. Cheney’s trip to the Middle East in March was seen as a harbinger of war. Bush is currently traveling through Europe, ratcheting up anti-Iran rhetoric and trying to find supporters for his Iran war.
According to Dion Nissonbaum of McClatchy newspapers, the very fact that a military strike is percolating back into mainstream debate is a significant - and I’d say ominous - shift.
On May 8th, US Rep. John Conyers sent Bush a letter warning that an attack on Iran without Congressional approval would be grounds for impeachment. Rep. Dennis Kucinich just delivered 35 valid articles of impeachment that now rest with the House Judiciary committee that Conyers chairs. Conyers doesn’t need to wait for another war to impeach Bush, but that’s just what he may do. But the fact that Conyers felt the need to even write this letter speaks volumes.
A new grassroots group has formed, the Campaign for a New American Policy On Iran. Last Tuesday, the group held an event & press conference titled “Time To Talk With Iran” on the Cannon House Office Building Terrace. The event was attended by congress members Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Ron Paul, Marcy Kaptor and former Reps. Bob Barr and Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Beyond the House of Representatives, an article by Conn Hallinan posted on Alternet.org cites an anonymous source who claims several US Senators have already been briefed about a possible war with Iran.
HOPEFUL SIGNS
IRAN - The grassroots group I just mentioned - the Campaign for a New American Policy On Iran - offers resources and ways to join with others opposing war with Iran. Visit their website at newiranpolicy.org.
IRAN - The U.S. Conference of Mayors is holding its annual meeting next week in Miami, Florida. Mayor Bob Kiss of Burlington, Vermont submitted resolution to the International Affairs Committee urging the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran on nuclear issues and urging Congress to prohibit the use of funds to carry out any military action against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization. 20 mayors from across the US have cosponsored the resolution. Contact Terry Bellamy and urge her to participate!
OIL - Though Senate Republicans killed a bill that would levy a windfall profit tax on oil companies, Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, is getting nervous about the political and economic effect of high oil prices. So the Saudis plan to increase output next month by about 1/2 million barrels a day, which if sustained would be the kingdom’s highest rate of output ever.
Though the Saudi kingdom is reaping record profits, they are concerned about the sharp decrease in demand occurring in the US and other developed nations. The Saudis also realize that the price of gas is making alternative fuels more viable, which will cut into their business. This is short-term relief at best, and the results may be negligible, but it marks a major shift in Saudi policy.
OIL - In yesterday’s Citizen-Times, Joy Franklin writes about a recent lecture in Asheville by Arjun Makhijani, the author of “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for US Energy Policy”. Makhijani’s new book talks about the current revolution in energy technology which may very well lead us out of this energy crisis without forcing us to make drastic changes in lifestyle. The book cites that the cost of solar energy systems has dropped by half in the last few years, and that both wind and solar energy systems are now positioned to cost less than nuclear power solutions.
Now all we need are leaders willing to encourage investment in alternative energy. Lacking that, I guess we could install wind turbines on Capitol Hill and harness all the hot air emanating from Congress and the White House.
One of my clients sent me a disturbing email from a group called “American Solutions for Winning the Future”. First off, I know that Bush expects us to accept his war against the concept of Terrorism - are we expanding the war to include the future, too?
In any case, the group’s mantra is Drill here - drill now - pay less, and their website features a video from their front man and king of gratuitous violence, Chuck Norris. What’s sad and laughable at the same time is that this myopic group actually thinks that if we start filling Alaska full of holes, it’s going to immediately lower gas prices.
It’s a cheap ploy to exploit peoples’ anger and fear over pump prices to further enrich the pockets of oil men - and studies show that this solution might lower the price of gas a few cents - but it will take 2-3 years to accomplish.
We need a better solution than that. Though some analysts are selling the pipe dream that gas prices are about to top out, and will soon ease off, Alexey Miller, the chief executive of Kremlin-owned Gazprom, the world’s largest energy company, predicts that oil will hit $250 per barrel “in the foreseeable future”.
BLAME CHINA
As gas skyrockets, affecting the price of everything we rely on to survive - food, clothing, electricity - that’s right - USA today just reported that thanks to the price of oil, electric bills will be going up 20-30% across the nation.
Most of these reports cite the growth of industry and higher standard of living in China as the reason for the squeezin. This excuse is as simplistic as it is inaccurate.
And it sure ain’t supply and demand. While it’s true that the oil companies are notorious for shutting down functional, profitable refineries to curtail supply and boost market price, how do you explain the current spike in prices when Americans have cut back on driving almost 5% compared to last year - which adds up to over 11 billion less miles traveled per month.
Writing for Information Clearing House, Paul Craig Roberts cites three more likely reasons that the price of gas has exploded.
1) The value of the US dollar on international markets has plummeted. 5-6 years ago, 1 US dollar was equal in value to 1 Euro. I just checked today’s rates, and it now takes $1.54 to buy one Euro, which means our dollar has lost over 35% of its value in just 5 years! If the price of oil had stayed constant, Americans would still be paying 35% more at the pump just to account for the weakened dollar.
To compound the problem, international traders are demanding Americans pay surcharges larger than the 35% that would equal the dollar’s current decrease in value, because they are hedging their bets. That means, they expect the dollar’s value to keep plummeting, and they want to be paid more up front to compensate for future shortfalls.
And as more oil markets cease trading in US dollars in favor of more stable currency like the Euro, the dollar won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.
2) The Federal Reserve knows we’re in big trouble, so they’re pouring out liquidity to try and stabilize our currency. Those funds are financing speculation in oil futures contracts.
Basically, the investor class made a fortune on the subprime housing bubble, and now that it has collapsed, they’ve created a new bubble they can profit on. That bubble is oil futures. Investors are buying up future oil contracts, betting that the price of oil will continue to skyrocket. But oil prices are skyrocketing due because the traders are driving the prices up with their investments. It’s a Catch 22 that could only happen thanks to the right-wing politicians who deregulated every market they could get their hands on.
This phenomenon could get a lot worse if investment firms create derivatives based on oil futures and churn those debts into assets as they did with the mortgage market. Hopefully, the oil bubble will burst before that happens, or we’ll look back on the current downturn as the small hiccup before the big crash.
3) Tension in the Middle East. This leads me right back to my favorite subject - Iran. Every time that Bush or Cheney or an Israeli politician rattles their sabres in Iran’s direction, oil speculators panic and the price of oil jumps dramatically. Last week, when Israel mentioned that an attack on Iran is “inevitable”, the price per barrel jumped $8 in an instant. BuzzFlash’s Dave Lindorff predicts that an attack on Iran will send oil almost immediately to past $300 per barrel. That would bring the US, as well as most of the rest of the world, to an economic standstill.
IRAN AGAIN?
Since the price of oil is directly related to Iran, we should all be paying close attention to the latest developments between the US, Israel and Iran. Last Spring and Summer, I was raising alarm bells that an attack on Tehran was imminent. I may have to give back the tinfoil hat award, because it turns out I was right.
According former deputy asst. secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs J. Scott Carpenter, Dick Cheney was hell bent for implementing a plan the Bush admin. hatched in December of 2007 that would launch airstrikes on Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases, but was stopped by the Pentagon. The Joint Chiefs knew full well that once a limited airstrike was initiated, it would escalate into full-scale war across the entire Middle East. Now that General David Petraeus is in charge of military operations in the Middle East, the Pentagon is no longer an obstacle.
Some DoD officials even went so far to admit that thanks to the occupation of Iraq, our military effectiveness has been compromised to the point that Iran has more and better options for hitting back at the United States than the US military has for hitting Iran.
So we came closer to attacking Iran last year than most Americans know. And given recent events, we may be right back in the same position. Cheney’s trip to the Middle East in March was seen as a harbinger of war. Bush is currently traveling through Europe, ratcheting up anti-Iran rhetoric and trying to find supporters for his Iran war.
According to Dion Nissonbaum of McClatchy newspapers, the very fact that a military strike is percolating back into mainstream debate is a significant - and I’d say ominous - shift.
On May 8th, US Rep. John Conyers sent Bush a letter warning that an attack on Iran without Congressional approval would be grounds for impeachment. Rep. Dennis Kucinich just delivered 35 valid articles of impeachment that now rest with the House Judiciary committee that Conyers chairs. Conyers doesn’t need to wait for another war to impeach Bush, but that’s just what he may do. But the fact that Conyers felt the need to even write this letter speaks volumes.
A new grassroots group has formed, the Campaign for a New American Policy On Iran. Last Tuesday, the group held an event & press conference titled “Time To Talk With Iran” on the Cannon House Office Building Terrace. The event was attended by congress members Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Ron Paul, Marcy Kaptor and former Reps. Bob Barr and Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Beyond the House of Representatives, an article by Conn Hallinan posted on Alternet.org cites an anonymous source who claims several US Senators have already been briefed about a possible war with Iran.
HOPEFUL SIGNS
IRAN - The grassroots group I just mentioned - the Campaign for a New American Policy On Iran - offers resources and ways to join with others opposing war with Iran. Visit their website at newiranpolicy.org.
IRAN - The U.S. Conference of Mayors is holding its annual meeting next week in Miami, Florida. Mayor Bob Kiss of Burlington, Vermont submitted resolution to the International Affairs Committee urging the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran on nuclear issues and urging Congress to prohibit the use of funds to carry out any military action against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization. 20 mayors from across the US have cosponsored the resolution. Contact Terry Bellamy and urge her to participate!
OIL - Though Senate Republicans killed a bill that would levy a windfall profit tax on oil companies, Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, is getting nervous about the political and economic effect of high oil prices. So the Saudis plan to increase output next month by about 1/2 million barrels a day, which if sustained would be the kingdom’s highest rate of output ever.
Though the Saudi kingdom is reaping record profits, they are concerned about the sharp decrease in demand occurring in the US and other developed nations. The Saudis also realize that the price of gas is making alternative fuels more viable, which will cut into their business. This is short-term relief at best, and the results may be negligible, but it marks a major shift in Saudi policy.
OIL - In yesterday’s Citizen-Times, Joy Franklin writes about a recent lecture in Asheville by Arjun Makhijani, the author of “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for US Energy Policy”. Makhijani’s new book talks about the current revolution in energy technology which may very well lead us out of this energy crisis without forcing us to make drastic changes in lifestyle. The book cites that the cost of solar energy systems has dropped by half in the last few years, and that both wind and solar energy systems are now positioned to cost less than nuclear power solutions.
Now all we need are leaders willing to encourage investment in alternative energy. Lacking that, I guess we could install wind turbines on Capitol Hill and harness all the hot air emanating from Congress and the White House.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
OCTOBER SURPRISE 2008?
Too many of us somehow still believe our nation will hold a fair, democratic election this November, resulting in a Democratic majority that will compel the radical faction of the GOP currently in the White House to relinquish power.
We should instead be prepared for the possibility that the administration will either steal yet another election, or create some catastrophic event that will cancel the election altogether.
Last Tuesday, in a Mississippi special Democratic candidate Travis Childers soundly beat GOP Greg Davis for what was considered to be one of the safest Republican seats in the country. The Saturday before, rookie Democrat Bill Foster won a Michigan seat previously held by former House Speaker Denny Hastert. These are just two losses of what had been considered "safe" seats for Republicans, suggesting the party could be heading for huge upsets in November's congressional elections.
Anyone still believing that Republicans are taking this news lying down is in deep denial.
Republicans realize that even if they multiply their tried-and-true dirty election tricks by 100, they still might not be able to steal the 2008 race. This time, they might need to take more drastic measures.
First, let’s look at a few precedents: In the early 1970s, a very paranoid Richard Nixon commissioned the Huston Plan, which detailed how to cancel the 1972 Election.
Just 4 years ago, then Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned that large-scale terrorist attacks might be planed to disrupt the presidential election, and hinted that a preventative code-red status might be used to shut down the country prior to the election.
At the same time, according to a report by globalresearch.ca, Bush worked behind the scenes to ignore the Election Assistance Commission’s bipartisan mandate by positinoning the EAC an informal arm of the Dept. of Homeland Security. That way, he could embed formal “guidelines” into federal election procedures that allow for the postponement or cancellation of the presidential election in the event of terrorist attack.
In 2004, a mildly unpopular Republican party knew all they needed was a small shift, so they used voter suppression tactics and exploited vulnerable electronic voting machines to swing the election their way. The GOP swung the vote in Ohio by a hardly detectable 6%, which was all they needed to hand Bush his 2nd term.
It’s 4 years later and thanks to the subprime mortgage crisis caused by corrupt Republican policies, Americans have had it with the GOP. They know it’s going to take a lot more than a few dirty tricks to stay in power.
Mass. Congressman John Olver publicly expressed his belief that the Bush administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections.
In an article on CommonDreams.org, Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis write “the Bush administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election. The real question is not how or when they might do it - it’s how...we can stop them”.
Indeed, Republicans also know that should they cancel the election process, we the people won’t take the news lying down. And they’ve planned for that possibility.
CONSOLIDATING EXECUTIVE POWER
John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 - allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder.
These provisions were slipped in at the last minute, allowing no opportunites for Congressional examination or comment.
Section 333 of the bill states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State are incapable of maintaining public order.
This overturns the 1878 Posse Comitatus act which prohibits use of the military for domestic law enforcement, allowing the President to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry. Senator Patrick Leahy condemned the Warner Act, claiming that it made it easier for Bush to declare Martial Law.
The Act also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton.
As you may recall, in January of 2006, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
And just today, Infowars.net reported The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) plans to build 3 new internment camps on both coasts and on the Southwestern border, each of which will house up to 50 men and women in addition to 150 children involved in immigration cases. The federal government is accepting bids on the contracts from county governments or private companies to build and run the "family detention centers"
On May 9th of last year, Bush issued Presidential Directive 51 outlining contingency plans in the event of a national emergency. The directive allows the president alone to determine what constitutes an emergency, which can be anything from a terrorist attack to a financial calamity. Once an emergency in declared, the Directive states that the President will then take control of all branches of the government. When members of Congress demanded that Bush show them the details of his martial law plan, Bush refused.
Last Summer, Bush issued Executive Order 13350 and 13438, which violate the 5th Amendment by empowering the federal government to freeze and/or sieze the assets of people who threaten Iraq's stability or. Its terms are so broad it could be applied to any domestic opponent of the Iraq war who has assets in the U.S. In other words, Bush is saying that he can take the house, car, bank accounts, and other assets of any American who actively protests against the Iraq war.
The “Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions” facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units.
When you add up the provisions of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, the repeal of Habeus Corpus, the hundreds of signing statements that disregard Congressional lawmaking, the illegal surveillance, the defiance of subpoenas, the violation of international treaties, the use of torture - when you add all this up and take a good look at the mountain of Constitution-crushing crimes committed by the Bush admin., it’s hard to deny that they’re playing for keeps.
Blogger Theresa Gandhi asks that we pause and think about human nature. She writes, “Do people really change when doing so means they could lose unlimited power? It’s like the illusion of a battered wife thinking a pattern of behavior will change. It won’t.”
If I’m wrong, and Democrats retake majorities in the House and Senate, and succeed in changing the course of our nation back toward democracy, I promise I’ll put on my tin foil hat and sit quietly in the corner.
But if I’m right, and any of the scenarios I’ve mentioned compromise our elections, please don’t cower in fear and give in to the theft of our few remaining liberties. Armed with this information, it’ll be obvious any future crisis resulting in the theft of the election has been manufactured by corrupt politicians seeking to retain their power. You’ll also know that it’s time to stand up and take that power back.
READING SUGGESTIONS
The End of America - A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf
It outlines the ten steps it takes to close down a democracy and transform it into an authoritarian state - and shows that how the Bush administration has already put those steps in place.
Democracy Incorporated - Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism by Sheldon Wolin, who argues that America’s freedoms are being lost while avoiding the appearance of suppression.
We should instead be prepared for the possibility that the administration will either steal yet another election, or create some catastrophic event that will cancel the election altogether.
Last Tuesday, in a Mississippi special Democratic candidate Travis Childers soundly beat GOP Greg Davis for what was considered to be one of the safest Republican seats in the country. The Saturday before, rookie Democrat Bill Foster won a Michigan seat previously held by former House Speaker Denny Hastert. These are just two losses of what had been considered "safe" seats for Republicans, suggesting the party could be heading for huge upsets in November's congressional elections.
Anyone still believing that Republicans are taking this news lying down is in deep denial.
Republicans realize that even if they multiply their tried-and-true dirty election tricks by 100, they still might not be able to steal the 2008 race. This time, they might need to take more drastic measures.
First, let’s look at a few precedents: In the early 1970s, a very paranoid Richard Nixon commissioned the Huston Plan, which detailed how to cancel the 1972 Election.
Just 4 years ago, then Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned that large-scale terrorist attacks might be planed to disrupt the presidential election, and hinted that a preventative code-red status might be used to shut down the country prior to the election.
At the same time, according to a report by globalresearch.ca, Bush worked behind the scenes to ignore the Election Assistance Commission’s bipartisan mandate by positinoning the EAC an informal arm of the Dept. of Homeland Security. That way, he could embed formal “guidelines” into federal election procedures that allow for the postponement or cancellation of the presidential election in the event of terrorist attack.
In 2004, a mildly unpopular Republican party knew all they needed was a small shift, so they used voter suppression tactics and exploited vulnerable electronic voting machines to swing the election their way. The GOP swung the vote in Ohio by a hardly detectable 6%, which was all they needed to hand Bush his 2nd term.
It’s 4 years later and thanks to the subprime mortgage crisis caused by corrupt Republican policies, Americans have had it with the GOP. They know it’s going to take a lot more than a few dirty tricks to stay in power.
Mass. Congressman John Olver publicly expressed his belief that the Bush administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections.
In an article on CommonDreams.org, Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis write “the Bush administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election. The real question is not how or when they might do it - it’s how...we can stop them”.
Indeed, Republicans also know that should they cancel the election process, we the people won’t take the news lying down. And they’ve planned for that possibility.
CONSOLIDATING EXECUTIVE POWER
John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 - allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder.
These provisions were slipped in at the last minute, allowing no opportunites for Congressional examination or comment.
Section 333 of the bill states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State are incapable of maintaining public order.
This overturns the 1878 Posse Comitatus act which prohibits use of the military for domestic law enforcement, allowing the President to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry. Senator Patrick Leahy condemned the Warner Act, claiming that it made it easier for Bush to declare Martial Law.
The Act also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton.
As you may recall, in January of 2006, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
And just today, Infowars.net reported The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) plans to build 3 new internment camps on both coasts and on the Southwestern border, each of which will house up to 50 men and women in addition to 150 children involved in immigration cases. The federal government is accepting bids on the contracts from county governments or private companies to build and run the "family detention centers"
On May 9th of last year, Bush issued Presidential Directive 51 outlining contingency plans in the event of a national emergency. The directive allows the president alone to determine what constitutes an emergency, which can be anything from a terrorist attack to a financial calamity. Once an emergency in declared, the Directive states that the President will then take control of all branches of the government. When members of Congress demanded that Bush show them the details of his martial law plan, Bush refused.
Last Summer, Bush issued Executive Order 13350 and 13438, which violate the 5th Amendment by empowering the federal government to freeze and/or sieze the assets of people who threaten Iraq's stability or. Its terms are so broad it could be applied to any domestic opponent of the Iraq war who has assets in the U.S. In other words, Bush is saying that he can take the house, car, bank accounts, and other assets of any American who actively protests against the Iraq war.
The “Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions” facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units.
When you add up the provisions of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, the repeal of Habeus Corpus, the hundreds of signing statements that disregard Congressional lawmaking, the illegal surveillance, the defiance of subpoenas, the violation of international treaties, the use of torture - when you add all this up and take a good look at the mountain of Constitution-crushing crimes committed by the Bush admin., it’s hard to deny that they’re playing for keeps.
Blogger Theresa Gandhi asks that we pause and think about human nature. She writes, “Do people really change when doing so means they could lose unlimited power? It’s like the illusion of a battered wife thinking a pattern of behavior will change. It won’t.”
If I’m wrong, and Democrats retake majorities in the House and Senate, and succeed in changing the course of our nation back toward democracy, I promise I’ll put on my tin foil hat and sit quietly in the corner.
But if I’m right, and any of the scenarios I’ve mentioned compromise our elections, please don’t cower in fear and give in to the theft of our few remaining liberties. Armed with this information, it’ll be obvious any future crisis resulting in the theft of the election has been manufactured by corrupt politicians seeking to retain their power. You’ll also know that it’s time to stand up and take that power back.
READING SUGGESTIONS
The End of America - A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf
It outlines the ten steps it takes to close down a democracy and transform it into an authoritarian state - and shows that how the Bush administration has already put those steps in place.
Democracy Incorporated - Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism by Sheldon Wolin, who argues that America’s freedoms are being lost while avoiding the appearance of suppression.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Bush's Buddy "Betrayus"
According in an article yesterday in the Washington Post, Bush has bypassed several levels of the military chain of command to give Petraeus unprecedented advisory status in White House deliberations over Iraq and the Middle East.
Charmain of the Armed Services Committee Senator Carl Levin has protested, saying that Bush should rely primarily on the advice of Def. Sec. Robert M. Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Levin said “not only are they Petraeus’ superiors, but they have the broad view of our national security needs, including Afghanistan, and the risks posed by stretching our force too thin.”
Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan era official who parted company with longtime friends Rumsfeld and Cheney over disagreements about the Iraq war said, “It’s part of Bush’s overall management style - to cede responsibility to a lower level and not look carefully at critical issues himself.
Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are reported to be uneasy with the Bush-Petraeus arrangement, and are concerned with the strain Bush is putting on the military. But for the time being, they’re keeping quiet.
A couple recent developments might explain why Bush has elevated Petraeus to right-hand man status. This weekend, AP news reported that that Defense Sec. Robert Gates reaffirmed the policy of resolving the conflict with Iran’s nuclear program diplomatically.
By contrast, British Newsgroup Telegraph UK reports that British officials are warning that General Petraeus will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Iraqi government when he testifies in Washington this week.
According to a British official, “Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the soruce of attacks on the American effort in Iraq . The article cites a Whitehall Assessment that asserts a strong statement from Petraeus could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities.
Don’t expect Petraeus to mention the fact that Iran was instrumental in convincing Al-Sadr to broker a truce this week between the Iraqi government and the Shiite cleric. Even though Al Sadr humiliated Iraqi forces in Basra, Iran helped convince Al Sadr to order his men off the streets and end the attacks.
So pay attention this week to Petraeus’ testimony on Capitol Hill, because he is expected heap more undeserved blame on Iran and help the Bush regime get their next war.
A couple more ominous developments increasing tension between the US and Iran:
Charmain of the Armed Services Committee Senator Carl Levin has protested, saying that Bush should rely primarily on the advice of Def. Sec. Robert M. Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Levin said “not only are they Petraeus’ superiors, but they have the broad view of our national security needs, including Afghanistan, and the risks posed by stretching our force too thin.”
Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan era official who parted company with longtime friends Rumsfeld and Cheney over disagreements about the Iraq war said, “It’s part of Bush’s overall management style - to cede responsibility to a lower level and not look carefully at critical issues himself.
Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are reported to be uneasy with the Bush-Petraeus arrangement, and are concerned with the strain Bush is putting on the military. But for the time being, they’re keeping quiet.
A couple recent developments might explain why Bush has elevated Petraeus to right-hand man status. This weekend, AP news reported that that Defense Sec. Robert Gates reaffirmed the policy of resolving the conflict with Iran’s nuclear program diplomatically.
By contrast, British Newsgroup Telegraph UK reports that British officials are warning that General Petraeus will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Iraqi government when he testifies in Washington this week.
According to a British official, “Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the soruce of attacks on the American effort in Iraq . The article cites a Whitehall Assessment that asserts a strong statement from Petraeus could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities.
Don’t expect Petraeus to mention the fact that Iran was instrumental in convincing Al-Sadr to broker a truce this week between the Iraqi government and the Shiite cleric. Even though Al Sadr humiliated Iraqi forces in Basra, Iran helped convince Al Sadr to order his men off the streets and end the attacks.
So pay attention this week to Petraeus’ testimony on Capitol Hill, because he is expected heap more undeserved blame on Iran and help the Bush regime get their next war.
A couple more ominous developments increasing tension between the US and Iran:
- Offering an appetizer of sorts to Petraeus’ anticipated saber rattling, Agence France Presse reports that Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer warned on Monday that Israel would respond to any Iranian attack by destroying that country.
- Iran said on Saturday it would press ahead with plans to expand their nuclear program. Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has rejected a package of UN incentives aimed and persuading Iran to halt their nuclear enrichment program.
- As if that weren’t enough to piss off the Bush administration, the AP reported yesterday that Ahmedinejad is urging OPEC members to form a joint bank and stop pricing oil trades in American dollars. This, and not Iran’s nuclear program, is most probably the real reason the Bush administration’s posture toward Iran is so hostile.
Mukasey = Lackey
If you had any illusions that our current Attorney General Michael Mukasey might work out to be less of a disingenuous Bush administration toady than Alberto Gonzales, I’m sorry to tell you that this week, Mukasey proved himself to be more of the same.
This is the same Michael Mukasey who ruled that an American Citizen - Jose Padilla - could be held as an enemy combatant for years without being charged of a crime.
The same Michael Mukasey who represented twin towers owner Larry Silverstein who claimed that because two planes hit his property, he was entitled to double his insurance claim.
So we shouldn’t be surprised at Mukasey’s latest address at the Commonwealth Club of SF last week. The Atty General’s speech demanded that Congress grant the president warrantless eavesdropping powers, and also give the telcom companies retroactive immunity for the eavesdropping they’ve already done on Bushs’ behalf. Expected behavior, to be sure - but what was unexpected, and outrageous was Mukasey’s rationale...
Mukasey claimed that officials “shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."
First off, regarding FISA law, Mukasey is either lying, or is ignorant of the law, which is alarming considering that Mukasey is the Atty General of the US. Pre-911 FISA law allows such a call to be intercepted without a warrant, so long as a warrant is sought within 72 hours of the event. My guess is, he knew that, but was betting that the American people don’t know the facts, so he could sway support for increased eavesdropping powers.
So that leaves with his claim that the government knew about a call from a safe house in Afghanistan that if intercepted, could have prevented 9-11 - yet incredibly, the government did nothing about it.
Is this a lie, or was our government that incompetent. MSNBC newscaster Keith Olbermann quipped “I’m betting on lying. If not, somebody in Congress better put that man under oath right quick.
I hope Olbermann is right and this is just another lie from the Bush administration to scare and distract Americans so they can subvert the Constitution even further. Because if Mukasey’s claim is true, this is huge news: The 911 Investigation revealed that the CIA and FBI had intercepted a variety of messages, but nothing was ever mentioned about the kind of call that Mukasey describes.
And whether it’s true or false, this should be a major story covered by all the mainstream news outlets. But it wasn’t. Sadly, the Mukasey story was mentioned a paltry 73 times last week, compared with 1043 mentions of Obama’s bowling score.
Hats off to Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald, who really took this story and ran with it. He contacted Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the 911 Commission to find out if he’d ever heard about a pre-911 phone call from an Afghan safe house into the US that relayed information about the attacks. Hamilton refused comment, which Greenwald fairly characterised as unacceptable. The 911 commission should reply about whether Mukasey’s claim is true - the American people deserve to know, and Mukasey needs to be accountable for his actions.
Greenwald also contacted 911 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow. Zelikow did reply, basically saying that nothing like what Mukasey described actually happened, but leaving it at that.
But the story did get the attention of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, who along with two Subcommittee chairs, sent a letter to Mukasey demanding he explain his understanding of the FISA laws, and to justify his claim that the Afghan safe house call actually happened.
The Dept. of Justice finally responded, blaming restrictions within Executive order 12333 issued in 1981 by Reagan as the reason why the phone call could not be intercepted. But 12333 has nothing to do with FISA, and could have been easily rescinded by George Bush - and actually E.O. 12333 was amended twice by Bush before 9-11. So the DOJ response actually heightens, rather than resolves the misleading nature of Mukasey’s statement, which appears to be yet another exploitation of 911 in order to scare the American people and weaken the US Constitution.
This is the same Michael Mukasey who ruled that an American Citizen - Jose Padilla - could be held as an enemy combatant for years without being charged of a crime.
The same Michael Mukasey who represented twin towers owner Larry Silverstein who claimed that because two planes hit his property, he was entitled to double his insurance claim.
So we shouldn’t be surprised at Mukasey’s latest address at the Commonwealth Club of SF last week. The Atty General’s speech demanded that Congress grant the president warrantless eavesdropping powers, and also give the telcom companies retroactive immunity for the eavesdropping they’ve already done on Bushs’ behalf. Expected behavior, to be sure - but what was unexpected, and outrageous was Mukasey’s rationale...
Mukasey claimed that officials “shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."
First off, regarding FISA law, Mukasey is either lying, or is ignorant of the law, which is alarming considering that Mukasey is the Atty General of the US. Pre-911 FISA law allows such a call to be intercepted without a warrant, so long as a warrant is sought within 72 hours of the event. My guess is, he knew that, but was betting that the American people don’t know the facts, so he could sway support for increased eavesdropping powers.
So that leaves with his claim that the government knew about a call from a safe house in Afghanistan that if intercepted, could have prevented 9-11 - yet incredibly, the government did nothing about it.
Is this a lie, or was our government that incompetent. MSNBC newscaster Keith Olbermann quipped “I’m betting on lying. If not, somebody in Congress better put that man under oath right quick.
I hope Olbermann is right and this is just another lie from the Bush administration to scare and distract Americans so they can subvert the Constitution even further. Because if Mukasey’s claim is true, this is huge news: The 911 Investigation revealed that the CIA and FBI had intercepted a variety of messages, but nothing was ever mentioned about the kind of call that Mukasey describes.
And whether it’s true or false, this should be a major story covered by all the mainstream news outlets. But it wasn’t. Sadly, the Mukasey story was mentioned a paltry 73 times last week, compared with 1043 mentions of Obama’s bowling score.
Hats off to Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald, who really took this story and ran with it. He contacted Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the 911 Commission to find out if he’d ever heard about a pre-911 phone call from an Afghan safe house into the US that relayed information about the attacks. Hamilton refused comment, which Greenwald fairly characterised as unacceptable. The 911 commission should reply about whether Mukasey’s claim is true - the American people deserve to know, and Mukasey needs to be accountable for his actions.
Greenwald also contacted 911 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow. Zelikow did reply, basically saying that nothing like what Mukasey described actually happened, but leaving it at that.
But the story did get the attention of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, who along with two Subcommittee chairs, sent a letter to Mukasey demanding he explain his understanding of the FISA laws, and to justify his claim that the Afghan safe house call actually happened.
The Dept. of Justice finally responded, blaming restrictions within Executive order 12333 issued in 1981 by Reagan as the reason why the phone call could not be intercepted. But 12333 has nothing to do with FISA, and could have been easily rescinded by George Bush - and actually E.O. 12333 was amended twice by Bush before 9-11. So the DOJ response actually heightens, rather than resolves the misleading nature of Mukasey’s statement, which appears to be yet another exploitation of 911 in order to scare the American people and weaken the US Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)