Are Dinosaurs Really Extinct?

Here I sit on a Sunday perusing info about corporations and the over-riding theme I keep getting is that there are no longer any ethical companies left in the US. Record profits reported (creative accounting?), new acquisitions announced, more mergers...how did these companies get here if everyone is reporting downturns in the economy? I think there is so much bullshit being dished out by corporate America that no one on this planet can figure out the truth. The truth is that everyone is running out of disposable income due to energy price gouging and it will only get worse until a) someone is elected to the office of President who is honest and ethical (muahahahahaha...unlikely!! or b) the bottom drops out and no one in America has money...not individuals and not corporations. I vote for b) because there are some selfish people on this planet who would think nothing of ripping off their own relatives let alone average citizens. But don't you fret none, peoples, because Bush will talk to God and come up with the perfect solution for all you conservatives.
So, all you big corporations, keep cutting payroll and screwing with your help, and playing the Workmans Comp shuffle. In the long run I think the eventual backlash will make all these 'forward looking' corporate honchos ex corporate honchos. At some point investors are going to get tired of the negative backlash from company employees and actually do something about 'dinosaurs' running companies. And the honchos that are causing these problems are rejects from other companies that had to file for restructuring or bankruptcy due to their 'innovative' ways of running these companies (into the ground?). Just remember to spend, spend, spend at the top, but take it from the bottom, after all, these people at the bottom don't even warrant a pat on the back and job well done. All the innovations and ideas come from the top, don't they?

Rant Over!!!

Help me out here, friends...I've been away from TM for a long while but know full well they haven't changed. Unless they bought forklifts or built loading docks at every store people are still being injured by bad policy. Please post a comment here and expose this bad business plan for what it is...an unethical practice of sweeping all these injuries under the rug just to save investors a few cents on their dividend checks. I mean, come on now, can their really be so many coincidental preexisting conditions for the same corporation? These people are being injured due to the nature of the business and the fact that the investors are not in the decision making loop at the corporate level so are unaware of the plight of the very employees that do their 'grunt' work for them.
Wow, was I off by a mile in advising everyone to join a union. Seems they are ineffective except at collecting union dues. The AFL-CIO is being more assertive lately at trying to find new members, although they can't keep their old ones any more. Well, in their style of union they negotiated pay and benefits up over a ceiling that no corporation could afford any longer, so they were asked for so many concessions that they became ineffective at the bargaining table....nothing left to trade. In other words a dinosaur from another era. The answer to all this would be for all citizens of the United States to become actively and intimately involved n our political process and really change it to represent the people, not the moneyed interests. More digression to follow. Stay tuned. Or not.
One last thing...to those who think I'm mad, I'm not...it was just great to get a break. Call me, e-mail me, whatever. Let's mend fences.

Public Giving Gov't, Business Lower Marks

News
10/25/2005 15:22:10 EST Public Giving Gov't, Business Lower Marks
By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The public's view of the government has eroded over the past year and its view of business corporations is now at the lowest level in two decades.
The public's rating for the federal government has fallen from 59 percent favorable last year to 45 percent now, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The favorable view of business corporations is also at 45 percent.

When dissatisfaction with national conditions is running high "people tend to be critical of institutions such as the government, the Congress, and have rising discontent with business corporations, especially oil companies," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. Only 20 percent of people said they have a favorable view of oil companies - down from 32 percent in 2001.

The federal government needs the public's trust to operate and businesses need the goodwill of customers, Kohut said.

The public's view of the Department of Defense has dropped from 76 percent favorable in 1997 to 56 percent during an unpopular war in Iraq. Even the view of the U.S. military has dropped slightly, from 87 percent favorable to 82 percent now.

The political parties have slipped with the public, as well. Republicans are now viewed unfavorably by 49 percent and favorably by 42 percent. Despite the GOP's falling popularity, Democrats have not gained ground and are seen favorably by 49 percent, down slightly from 53 percent last year.

Two institutions that have not slipped with the public are the news media, viewed positively by 52 percent, and the Supreme Court, 62 percent.

The poll of 2,006 adults was taken Oct. 12-24 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, larger for subgroups.

___

On the Net:

Pew Research Center: http://www.people-press.org

We Now Live in a Fascist State

Harper's Magazine: We Now Live in a Fascist State


Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:34:38 -0700

The article below appears in the current issue of Harpers and was written
by Lewis H. Lapham

www.harpers.org/LewisLapham.html

Knowing the source of this piece makes it all the more disturbing. It is not every day that the editor of a respected national magazine publishes an essay claiming that America is not on the road to becoming, but ALREADY IS, a fascist state.... or words to that affect.

To help prepare you for what follows, here are the final sentence from this piece.... [I think we can look forward with confidence to character-building bankruptcies, picturesque bread riots, thrilling cavalcades of splendidly costumed motorcycle police.]

On message By Lewis H. Lapham Harper's Magazine, October 2005, pps. 7-9 "But I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, then Fascism and Communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in strength in our land." -Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 4, 1938

In 1938 the word "fascism" hadn't yet been transferred into an abridged metaphor for all the world's unspeakable evil and monstrous crime, and on coming across President Roosevelt's prescient remark in one of Umberto Eco's essays, I could read it as prose instead of poetry -- a reference not to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or the pit of Hell but to the political theories that regard individual citizens as the property of the government, happy villagers glad to wave the flags and wage the wars, grateful for the good fortune that placed them in the care of a sublime leader. Or, more emphatically, as Benito Mussolini liked to say, "Everything in the state. Nothing outside the state. Nothing against the state."

The theories were popular in Europe in the 1930s (cheering crowds, rousing band music, splendid military uniforms), and in the United States they numbered among their admirers a good many important people who believed that a somewhat modified form of fascism (power vested in the banks and business corporations instead of with the army) would lead the country out of the wilderness of the Great Depression -- put an end to the Pennsylvania labor troubles, silence the voices of socialist heresy and democratic dissent. Roosevelt appreciated the extent of fascism's popularity at the political box office; so does Eco, who takes pains in the essay "Ur-Fascism," published in The New York Review of Books in 1995, to suggest that it's a mistake to translate fascism into a figure of literary speech. By retrieving from our historical memory only the vivid and familiar images of fascist tyranny (Gestapo firing squads, Soviet labor camps, the chimneys at Treblinka), we lose sight of the faith-based initiatives that sustained the tyrant's rise to glory. The several experiments with fascist government, in Russia and Spain as well as in Italy and Germany, didn't depend on a single portfolio of dogma, and so Eco, in search of their common ground, doesn't look for a unifying principle or a standard text. He attempts to describe a way of thinking and a habit of mind, and on sifting through the assortment of fantastic and often contradictory notions -- Nazi paganism, Franco's National Catholicism, Mussolini's corporatism, etc. -- he finds a set of axioms on which all the fascisms agree. Among the most notable:

The truth is revealed once and only once.

Parliamentary democracy is by definition rotten because it doesn't represent the voice of the people, which is that of the sublime leader.

Doctrine outpoints reason, and science is always suspect.

Critical thought is the province of degenerate intellectuals, who betray the culture and subvert traditional values.

The national identity is provided by the nation's enemies.

Argument is tantamount to treason.

Perpetually at war, the state must govern with the instruments of fear. Citizens do not act; they play the supporting role of "the people" in the grand opera that is the state.

Eco published his essay ten years ago, when it wasn't as easy as it has since become to see the hallmarks of fascist sentiment in the character of an American government. Roosevelt probably wouldn't have been surprised.

He'd encountered enough opposition to both the New Deal and to his belief in such a thing as a United Nations to judge the force of America's racist passions and the ferocity of its anti-intellectual prejudice. As he may have guessed, so it happened. The American democracy won the battles for Normandy and Iwo Jima, but the victories abroad didn't stem the retreat of democracy at home, after 1968 no longer moving "forward as a living force, seeking day and night to better the lot" of its own citizens, and now that sixty years have passed since the bomb fell on Hiroshima, it doesn't take much talent for reading a cashier's scale at Wal-Mart to know that it is fascism, not democracy, that won the heart and mind of America's "Greatest Generation," added to its weight and strength on America's shining seas and fruited plains.

A few sorehead liberal intellectuals continue to bemoan the fact, write books about the good old days when everybody was in charge of reading his or her own mail. I hear their message and feel their pain, share their feelings of regret, also wish that Cole Porter was still writing songs, that Jean Harlow and Robert Mitchum hadn't quit making movies. But what's gone is gone, and it serves nobody's purpose to deplore the fact that we're not still riding in a coach to Philadelphia with Thomas Jefferson. The attitude is cowardly and French, symptomatic of effete aesthetes who refuse to change with the times.

As set forth in Eco's list, the fascist terms of political endearment are refreshingly straightforward and mercifully simple, many of them already accepted and understood by a gratifyingly large number of our most forward-thinking fellow citizens, multitasking and safe with Jesus. It does no good to ask the weakling's pointless question, "Is America a fascist state?" We must ask instead, in a major rather than a minor key, "Can we make America the best damned fascist state the world has ever seen," an authoritarian paradise deserving the admiration of the international capital markets, worthy of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind"? I wish to be the first to say we can. We're Americans; we have the money and the know-how to succeed where Hitler failed, and history has favored us with advantages not given to the early pioneers.

We don't have to burn any books.

The Nazis in the 1930s were forced to waste precious time and money on the inoculation of the German citizenry, too well-educated for its own good, against the infections of impermissible thought. We can count it as a blessing that we don't bear the burden of an educated citizenry. The systematic destruction of the public-school and library systems over the last thirty years, a program wisely carried out under administrations both Republican and Democratic, protects the market for the sale and distribution of the government's propaganda posters. The publishing companies can print as many books as will guarantee their profit (books on any and all subjects, some of them even truthful), but to people who don't know how to read or think, they do as little harm as snowflakes falling on a frozen pond.

We don't have to disturb, terrorize, or plunder the bourgeoisie.

In Communist Russia as well as in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the codes of social hygiene occasionally put the regime to the trouble of smashing department-store windows, beating bank managers to death, inviting opinionated merchants on complimentary tours (all expenses paid, breathtaking scenery) of Siberia. The resorts to violence served as study guides for free, thinking businessmen reluctant to give up on the democratic notion that the individual citizen is entitled to an owner's interest in his or her own mind.

The difficulty doesn't arise among people accustomed to regarding themselves as functions of a corporation. Thanks to the diligence of out news media and the structure of our tax laws, our affluent and suburban classes have taken to heart the lesson taught to the aspiring serial killers rising through the ranks at West Point and the Harvard Business School -- think what you're told to think, and not only do you get to keep the house in Florida or command of the Pentagon press office but on some sunny prize day not far over the horizon, the compensation committee will hand you a check for $40 million, or President George W. Bush will bestow on you the favor of a nickname as witty as the ones that on good days elevate Karl Rove to the honorific "Boy Genius," on bad days to the disappointed but no less affectionate "Turd Blossom." Who doesn't now know that the corporation is immortal, that it is the corporation that grants the privilege of an identity, confers meaning on one's life, gives the pension, a decent credit rating, and the priority standing in the community? Of course the corporation reserves the right to open one's email, test one's blood, listen to the phone calls, examine one's urine, hold the patent on the copyright to any idea generated on its premises. Why ever should it not? As surely as the loyal fascist knew that it was his duty to serve the state, the true American knows that it is his duty to protect the brand.

Having met many fine people who come up to the corporate mark -- on golf courses and commuter trains, tending to their gardens in Fairfield County while cutting back the payrolls in Michigan and Mexico -- I'm proud to say (and I think I speak for all of us here this evening with Senator Clinton and her lovely husband) that we're blessed with a bourgeoisie that will welcome fascism as gladly as it welcomes the rain in April and the sun in June. No need to send for the Gestapo or the NKVD; it will not be necessary to set examples.

We don't have to gag the press or seize the radio stations.

People trained to the corporate style of thought and movement have no further use for free speech, which is corrupting, overly emotional, reckless, and ill-informed, not calibrated to the time available for television talk or to the performance standards of a Super Bowl halftime show. It is to our advantage that free speech doesn't meet the criteria of the free market. We don't require the inspirational genius of a Joseph Goebbels; we can rely instead on the dictates of the Nielsen ratings and the camera angles, secure in the knowledge that the major media syndicates run the business on strictly corporatist principles -- afraid of anything disruptive or inappropriate, committed to the promulgation of what is responsible, rational, and approved by experts. Their willingness to stay on message is a credit to their professionalism.

The early twentieth-century fascists had to contend with individuals who regarded their freedom of expression as a necessity -- the bone and marrow of their existence, how they recognized themselves as human beings. Which was why, if sometimes they refused appointments to the state-run radio stations, they sometimes were found dead on the Italian autostrada or drowned in the Kiel Canal. The authorities looked upon their deaths as forms of self-indulgence. The same attitude governs the agreement reached between labor and management at our leading news organizations. No question that the freedom of speech is extended to every American -- it says so in the Constitution -- but the privilege is one that musn't be abused. Understood in a proper and financially rewarding light, freedom of speech is more trouble than it's worth -- a luxury comparable to owning a racehorse and likely to bring with it little else except the risk of being made to look ridiculous. People who learn to conduct themselves in a manner respectful of the telephone tap and the surveillance camera have no reason to fear the fist of censorship. By removing the chore of having to think for oneself, one frees up more leisure time to enjoy the convenience of the Internet services that know exactly what one likes to hear and see and wear and eat. We don't have to murder the intelligentsia.

Here again, we find ourselves in luck. The society is so glutted with easy entertainment that no writer or company of writers is troublesome enough to warrant the compliment of an arrest, or even the courtesy of a sharp blow to the head. What passes for the American school of dissent talks exclusively to itself in the pages of obscure journals, across the coffee cups in Berkeley and Park Slope, in half-deserted lecture halls in small Midwestern
colleges. The author on the platform or the beach towel can be relied upon to direct his angriest invective at the other members of the academy who failed to drape around the title of his latest book the garland of a rave review.

The blessings bestowed by Providence place America in the front rank of nations addressing the problems of a twenty-first century, certain to require bold geopolitical initiatives and strong ideological solutions. How can it be otherwise? More pressing demands for always scarcer resources; ever larger numbers of people who cannot be controlled except with an increasingly heavy hand of authoritarian guidance. Who better than the Americans to lead the fascist renaissance, set the paradigm, order the preemptive strikes? The existence of mankind hangs in the balance; failure is not an option. Where else but in America can the world find the visionary intelligence to lead it bravely into the future -- Donald Rumsfeld our Dante, Turd Blossom our Michelangelo?

I don't say that over the last thirty years we haven't made brave strides forward. By matching Eco's list of fascist commandments against our record of achievement, we can see how well we've begun the new project for the next millennium -- the notion of absolute and eternal truth embraced by the evangelical Christians and embodied in the strict constructions of the Constitution; our national identity provided by anonymous Arabs; Darwin's theory of evolution rescinded by the fiat of "intelligent design"; a state of perpetual war and a government administering, in generous and daily doses, the drug of fear; two presidential elections stolen with little or no objection on the part of a complacent populace; the nation's congressional districts gerrymandered to defend the White House for the next fifty years against the intrusion of a liberal-minded president; the news media devoted to the arts of iconography, busily minting images of corporate executives like those of the emperor heroes on the coins of ancient Rome.

An impressive beginning, in line with what the world has come to expect from the innovative Americans, but we can do better. The early twentieth-century fascisms didn't enter their golden age until the proletariat in the countries that gave them birth had been reduced to abject poverty. The music and the marching songs rose with the cry of eagles from the wreckage of the domestic economy. On the evidence of the wonderful work currently being done by the Bush Administration with respect to the trade deficit and the national debt -- to say nothing of expanding the markets for global terrorism -- I think we can look forward with confidence to character-building bankruptcies, picturesque bread riots, thrilling cavalcades of splendidly costumed motorcycle police.

Martial Law - Coming To A Neighborhood Near You? Pt. 2

Martial Law - Coming
To A Neighborhood
Near You? - Pt. 2
By Craig Roberts
NewsWithViews.com
10-18-5

During the Clinton administration, the military was basically reduced-I would use the word "destroyed"-by not only reduction in forces and personnel and equipment and bases, but by chasing off the best officers and NCOs this country had in uniform at the time. I know of many of my cohorts who loved their country and military careers, but became so disenchanted with the Clintons' anti-military doctrines and abhorrence of the military that they either hung up their boots and became civilians, or took early retirement. It was during this time that political correctness was shoved down the throats of fighting units: females were put into harm's way in front line or near units; homosexuals were "accepted" by the "don't ask, don't tell" doctrine; and combined male/female combat support units and ships and aircraft came into being. The Clintons'mission was to destroy the military, or at least reduce it to a shadow of what was required to defend this country. (It was also a mission of the Clinton administration to reduce the firepower of the average American citizen with new, draconian "gun control" laws-after all, any invading force in the future would not want to face a few million armed American "guerrillas").

It was during this time that Islamic terrorist organizations grew and flourished, and Clinton did little, if anything, about it. It was almost as if he-or his globalist puppet masters-wanted such a movement to grow and become even stronger.

Then it was George W. Bush's turn.

Harry Truman once said that "there's not a nickel's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats" at the Washington level. I would like to put it another way: If the Democrats in Washington voted to burn the city down, the Republicans would vote to phase it in over a two week period.

We are now seeing how true that is. Considering that the main function of our government is to provide for the common defense, then we have a capital full of traitors. At this very moment we are undergoing a massive invasion along our southwestern border on a daily basis. There are similar incursions on the northern border, and along our coasts and seaports, but the most obvious is the borders of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Reports of Islamic terrorists-al Qaeda-are coming in all the time, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexicans, Salvadorans, South Americans, and Chinese. Yes, I said Chinese. More on this in a minute.

While this invasion is occurring, no matter how much we scream and shout and complain, Washington-and especially the White House-remains strangely silent. Americans have even had to form border watch organizations like the Minutemen to help the beleaguered Border Patrol slow down the massive flow of illegals and terrorists.

To close the border could be done. It might take the American military to do it-which is actually supposed to be its primary job (secure the borders and provide for the national defense), but what is left of our military has been deployed overseas to the point that there's no one left at home to watch the chickens. Our "reduced" armed forces are now tied up in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Kosovo, and places in South America and the Philippines. The active units have made so many deployments that they are losing good personnel because of the wear-down factor. We are now relying on not only the Reserves but also the National Guard to fight overseas wars!

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the media showed the country that the local governing officials for the mayor to the governor and all their horses and men could not handle the problems at hand. It was up to not only FEMA, and all of our charitable and emergency management organizations and what national guardsmen that could be spared, but the only combat division left in the U.S.-the 82nd Airborne-which had to be deployed to secure one city. Just ONE city. If the emergency was more widespread, who were we going to call to help us? What if the 82nd had already been "punched out" for another tour in Iraq?

Now, let's add a few more factors:

China controls the Panama Canal, and has established the world's largest ocean shipping fleet (COSCO) and ocean transshipment center (Hutchinson-Whampoa at Freeport, Bahamas) just a few miles from Florida. They have made huge inroads into our technological structure. During the Clinton Regime they obtained our nuclear secrets, missile guidance systems, and even have had special operations forces trained by our Special Forces. They are now building a huge invasion fleet-allegedly for a future invasion of Taiwan-and are bolstering the South Koreans with military equipment and supplies. There are Chinese weapons and "advisors" in Mexico, and our border residents, including law enforcement, have reported "Asian males in uniform on, and crossing, the border" in California and Arizona. Also, Sealift containers full of Chinese arms have been intercepted in Long Beach, California and other places. The excuse we were given in the media was that they were smuggled goods earmarked for street gangs.

Meanwhile, over the past twenty years we have trained Russians and other former "Warsaw Pact" troops at Fort Polk, Louisiana in a project called Operation Cooperative Nugget. Most of the training concerned searching buildings in a combat town that looks just like downtown America. Most of this training was "house-to-house search and seizure" for arms and/or "insurgents." These units then took this training home to construct more combat towns (MOUT sites--for Military Operations in Urban Terrain), then train their own forces at home.

Other training concerned how to operate our equipment and weapons. As an intel type, this tells me that if I were to want to send my troops someplace, it would be easy to load them quickly if they didn't have to load equipment. If we can use pre-positioned trucks, tanks and aircraft, then we only need to worry about getting the troops to the zone of action. This is why we have a Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean with pre-positioned equipment and supplies. Is this why China has Freeport?

So, here is what we have so far:

* We have been conditioned to accept we can't win a war by ourselves anymore

* Our military has been reduced in force and strength

* Many of our installations and bases have been closed

* Our forces have been stretched thin and deployed overseas

* Internally, there are morale and morals issues that have not existed in the past

* We have used up our Reserves and National Guard and continue to do so

* Our borders remain open, almost as if by design

* We have no control over the illegal immigrants, including terrorists, who come into this country

* The firepower of the American people has been reduced to "sporting arms" in most areas

* National Emergencies are occurring more frequently, and the federal Emergency Management program is not effective

We now have a Homeland Defense organization that has ever-reaching powers over the citizenry and a blank check to, if not shackled by law, become our version of the Geheime Staatspolizei-the Gestapo or Secret State Police.

And now we have another barbarian at our gate: Avian Influenza-Bird Flu.

The media, and the White House, has already broached the subject of a possible "pandemic" that is as large, if not larger, than the 1918 outbreak that killed millions.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and in the preparation for Hurricane Rita, we were introduced to the first use of martial law in this country since the 1932 when US Army troops broke up the Veterans Bonus March camp in Washington who were protesting the federal government's reneging on veterans bonus payments to the WWI vets.

There are times when using military assets are necessary in a disaster or other emergency: carrying and distributing food, fuel and water, traffic control, emergency transportation, evacuations, searches and rescues, and so on. But they are not to be used as a control agent to force some despot's will upon the people. We know this, and our military knows this. I think that it is because our young soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen can not be trusted by the global-socialists of the New World Order gang to impose their will on us, that they will be more than happy to use "foreign assets" to police our streets-and us.

Plans are now made for quarantining cities and towns, blocking major highways, shutting down airports, and relocating segments of the population-by force if necessary. Also, plans are in place to forcibly inoculate the population. This is a frightening thought in itself when we consider the track record of the federal government when it comes to such wonderful programs such as Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, experiments on GIs and sailors with gasses, poisons, and biological weapons, plus marching soldiers through nuclear test sites after bombs were exploded to see what would happen. This is also a government that now has a law that says it can experiment on the civilian population with chemicals and biological weapons without our knowledge or consent.

To sum this all up: our military is reduced in strength and are now overseas; our reserves are used up; our borders are open; terrorists are inside our country and may even have access to nuclear weapons; our federal government is totally infiltrated with global-socialists; and now we are facing a global pandemic that might require "foreign assets" and martial law!

I'm sure China and Russia are ready to come to our aid.

Some Americans will, as Kissinger predicted, welcome them with open arms.

What the globalists fear now is that too many will "welcome" them with a demonstration of our Second Amendment-if the Bird Flu doesn't get us first.




Disclaimer

Email This Article




MainPage
http://www.rense.com


This Site Served by TheHostPros

Martial Law - Coming To A Neighborhood Near You? Pt. 1

Martial Law - Coming
To A Neighborhood
Near You? - Pt. 1
By Craig Roberts
NewsWithViews.com
10-18-5

Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, famous for defeating Napoleon's Grande Armee at Waterloo, once said "I've spent my entire life trying to discover what the fellow on the other side of the hill was up to."

And so it is with intelligence gathering and analysis. As a former intel analyst, I've spent many years on various missions beginning in the mid-1980s and going beyond Desert Storm taking pieces of the "global threat puzzle" and trying to fit the pieces together to discover what the "other fellow" was up to, and what he would do next.

In the past two decades I have witnessed a series of events that are extremely disturbing. Events, that if put together as pieces of a puzzle, seem to form a picture that is most disturbing-and even terrifying. Taken alone, they mean little. But taken in whole, the mosaic forms more than just a pattern-one that is planned, mission-oriented, and taking place almost as if there were a list of events that must occur to accomplish the final mission.

The "final mission" is two-fold: destruction of nation-states, and establishment of a New Age global-socialist New World Order.

For those who think this is "conspiracy theory," or simply fear-factor-fiction, let me ask this: Do you think the US Constitution is intact, and is this the same country as it was fifty years ago? If not, why not? And what and who caused the change?

Let's all play intelligence analyst. We'll do this by examining the reports, putting the pieces on the wall and seeing what kind of picture it forms. Here are the clues:

At the end of World War I, a new idea was born that national governments could not be trusted to govern their indigenous populations in an effective manner, and help maintain international peace. Instead, due to the carnage of World War I-the Great War-national governments should become subservient to a global entity. This entity was formed and became the League of Nations. However, the world and most countries were not ready for such a "super-government" and refused to get on board. The globalists were furious, but did not give up.

In 1945, when World War II ended, a private "club" called the Council on Foreign Relations, which is not part of any government agency, but instead is the American faction of the Royal Society of International Affairs in London, was instrumental in creating a new globalist organization called the United Nations. This body's mission was to slowly reduce the authority of national governments and replace them with a world council of representatives, none of which were elected, and none of which were patriotic nationalists. Their mission was to establish a world government in which other nations were simply nation states in their "New World Order."

In 1950 two wars broke out in Asia: the Korean war and the French Indochina war. During these "conflicts" the French, who attempted to retain their pre-war colony, were defeated by Ho Chi Minh's Vietminh guerrillas (by using US supplied equipment and weapons provided from the surplus stock on Okinawa left over from World War II). Meanwhile the United Nations forces intervened in an invasion of South Korea by North Korea-who was quickly reinforced by the Communist Chinese army. The French eventually lost their colony after the debacle at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The South Koreans retained their country, but the war never ended. A truce was called in 1953, and Korea has become the longest war in American history.

The bottom line here is that the world-and the American people-were mentally conditioned that a single country (like France) could no longer win a war by itself, and the combined efforts of the UN forces in Korea barely was able to stand up against Communist aggression. (In point of fact, all UN forces' plans had to be cleared by a general at UN headquarters, who just happened to be a Russian, and all plans were relayed to the Chinese well in advance of an operation.)

But the American people-who had just won a two-ocean war against two powerful enemies-had to be convinced that we could not longer fight a war alone or stand alone. The stage was set for Vietnam.

The US forces, along with the South Vietnamese Army, and Australian allies, were forced to fight a war that they were not allowed to win. Lyndon B. Johnson and his "whiz kids" in the White House micromanaged the war to the point that generals in the field could not pursue an operation to its maximum effect, and even had to give up terrain that we took with American blood, plus stay within the confines of South Vietnam and not attack or pursue the enemy into his safe havens in Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam. The end result was that the North signed the Paris Peace Accords simply to give President Richard Nixon (and Henry Kissinger) a means of extracting our forces from South Vietnam with "peace with honor." Two years later the North invaded the South and the rest is history. The lesson to the American people, via our media, is that we should not use our military forces abroad in any affair that might turn into a "quagmire" or "another Vietnam." The media, controlled by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and other global socialists (including their Asian and European counterparts), successfully conditioned the American psyche that we "do not want any more Vietnam style entanglements."

After Vietnam our armed forces underwent what was called a "Reduction in Force" or RIF. At the same time the "draft" was put on the back burner and a "volunteer army" was created. All of this at the height of the Cold War when Russia and China were building their forces. By the early 1980s the threat envisioned by the Pentagon was an attack on Western Europe by the Soviet Union through Germany. Known as the Fulda Gap scenario, where it was envisioned the Russians would push through with high speed armor assaults, it was theorized-and prepared for-that we would be forced to fight a fighting withdrawal through Europe while politicians decided if we would employ nuclear weapons. No one ever came up with a public answer to this threat, and in the end it never happened-yet.

There is an old military axiom that says that the military gains its best support when there is a barbarian at the gate. In other words, most people don't worry about supporting or funding the military unless they fear a threat that would affect them. By the mid 1980s a new threat was growing ever more frightening: Terrorism.

It actually gained U.S. attention during the Munich Olympics when the Black September terrorist gang of Palestinians kidnapped and killed members of the Israeli Olympic team. This was followed by many other "Arab Terrorist" attacks that often included American victims: skyjackings, an attack on a cruise ship, bombings, and kidnappings and assassinations. This new threat has been growing for over four decades and has become the current "barbarian at the gate." Don't get me wrong: it's real, it's there, and it's coming. But we have to ask how much of it was originally created or financed by our own intelligence services. We know that Osama bin Laden had CIA support in Afghanistan when the Russians occupied the country, and that Abu Nidal was a US intelligence asset. Who knows how many others?

Since the alleged "fall of the Soviet Union", the US and other western powers have undergone a political reduction in our armed forces. Beginning during the George H.W. Bush administration-up until Desert Storm when we were caught in a very vulnerable position militarily-our military has systematically been reduced in force structure, equipment destroyed or stored without proper maintenance, and numbers of personnel and equipment reduced to the point of being basically combat ineffective if committed to a major war.

In the 1990s, during the Clinton regime, when bases were being closed and Army divisions being cut, and tanks, planes and ships were being put in mothballs, a Pentagon general gave a speech to the CASQ officers command and staff class at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He said, paraphrasing, "with the build down of our armed forces, should we become committed to a two-ocean war, or be deployed to more than two foreign campaigns, and should a national emergency occur inside the continental United States, we will be forced to call upon foreign assets to patrol our streets."

The thought of this at the time was terrifying. But during the Los Angeles riots Henry Kissinger stated that even though at that time US citizens would not stand for foreign troops on US soil, that some day we would welcome them with open arms.



Disclaimer

Email This Article




MainPage
http://www.rense.com


This Site Served by TheHostPros

In Honor Of Mel

Took my cat to the vets today because he was having difficulty breathing. Turns out he had congenital heart disease, had a swollen chamber in his heart and was minutes from death when I got him there. They placed him in an oxygen chamber and used a catheter to try and drain fluid from his lungs. It was such a hard decision to have him euthanized but the reality was he probably wouldn't have survived long even with medication. He was five years old, white with black spots, and a joy. Have fun in kitty heaven, good boy.

We Can't Let It Happen Here (Reprint)

We Can't Let It Happen Here
By Jason Miller
10-9-5

What is beyond the looking glass?

"And certainly the glass was beginning to melt away, just like a bright silvery mist. In another moment Alice was through the glass, and had jumped lightly down into the Looking-glass room."

Over a year ago, the comfort of my world severely diminished as I took my journey through the looking glass and discerned the ugly truths about the nation of my birth, the United States of America. "Logic and proportion certainly seemed to have "fallen softly dead when I discovered that much of what I had learned about my country as a child had been a lie. My world was turned upside down. Now I passionately pursue my goal to share my awakening with many others so they too feel inspired to struggle to preserve the excellent qualities of America and to eradicate the rotting decay.

Virtually each day I sift through a wealth of information I glean from books, the Internet, and sometimes the mainstream media. I also read (and respond to) many of the hundreds of emails I receive. Supporters of my writing email me with thanks and observations. More neutral parties send me information or viewpoints I had not considered and point out factual or logical flaws in my essays. Antagonists and critics hammer me with ad hominem attacks, invitations to leave the country, and even death threats. I offer my thanks to each person who writes me. I welcome support for obvious reasons, additional information expands the limits of my knowledge, and attacks inspire me to pursue social justice with a renewed intensity.

As my base of knowledge and volume of communication with people on political matters have increased, I have become increasingly certain of an unpopular conclusion. Certainly it could be much worse in America in some respects, but if one drills a bit beneath the surface, the putrid stench of corruption and inhumanity is almost unbearable. The United States of America is governed by an aristocracy with globally imperialistic ambitions that is preparing to sweep away the remaining vestiges of our Constitutional republic. My viewpoint is based on a wide array of eclectic sources. While many derive comfort from labeling themselves and following the herd, I align myself with neither conservatives nor liberals, Democrats nor Republicans. I pledge allegiance to no party, flag, or government. My loyalty is to my Higher Power, my family, my friends, my fellow human beings, and to myself.

US democracy: the best government "The Moneyed can buy

America's apologists can deny the reality to their dying breath, but the truth is that the United States of America as a democracy, a republic, or a free society is a fraud. While our nation was founded on high principles, even our founders fell far short of the standards they set for themselves. Many owned slaves, despite the fact that they may have had misgivings about it. Some, like Alexander Hamilton, desired an overt aristocracy because they did not trust the "people" to govern themselves. Virtually all of our founders were wealthy, white land-owners. Throughout its history, this nation has failed to deliver on the promises of its Constitution. Even Lincoln, one of the finer men to serve in the Oval Office, did not end slavery out of moral considerations. The Civil War and political pressures led him to pursue the abolition of that abhorrent institution.

In spite of the Emancipation Proclamation and the subsequent Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery, Black Americans have continued to face tremendous oppression, abuse, and racism throughout America's history. The feeble response of the federal government to the crisis in New Orleans (a predominately Black city) and Bill Bennett's recent repugnant remarks provide poignant evidence that bigotry and racism are deeply ingrained into American government and society. As it continues to pour $5 billion per month into an illegal occupation in Iraq, the federal government plans to cut entitlement programs to pay for the reconstruction of the city of New Orleans. This will render a significant blow to the impoverished victims of Katrina and to many other poor Americans, regardless of their race.

Despite intense opposition by the wealthy elitists who dominated America's government, throughout much of the Twentieth Century groups and movements fought to utilize the mechanisms available through our Constitution to advance the cause of social justice. The Women's Suffrage Movement, the Wobblies, the Socialists, the ACLU, the Civil Rights Movement, and many others employed non-violent means to gain unprecedented rights for women, the working class, Black Americans, children, the poor, and other minorities. Many paid for their "crime" of standing up to the ruling elites through loss of their careers and reputations, prison time, beatings, deportation, and even assasination. Thanks to these brave individuals, the soulless worshippers of money were curtailed in their oppression of the people, at least for a time.

Stop! You have gone FAR enough.

Richard Nixon was a felon, but the Watergate scandal was rather insignificant when one considers that his presidency marked the advent of a new "Gilded Age". Starting with the Nixon era, Social Darwinism began to recapture the hearts and minds of many Americans. While fancying themselves to be part of a pluralistic society resting on the pillars of freedom, equality, justice, and democracy, many denizens of the United States have willingly enabled their government to become one of the most avaricious, corrupt, and covertly repressive entities in history. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II have worked feverishly to advance the "noble causes" of the enrichment of corporate America, the expansion of the American Empire, the steady erosion of the populist gains made during the Twentieth Century, and the substantial increase in the wealth chasm between the rich and the poor. When we see Ronald Reagan's face enshrined on the $50 bill, we will know that the tyranny of the wealthy elite has reached a milestone in convincing average Americans of the "righteousness" of their cause. Few worked harder than Reagan to advance their agenda and to bring the social justice movement to a screeching halt.

Who needs the Constitution?

Consider the circumstances of Jose Padilla, a US citizen arrested on US soil. He has been imprisoned by the US government without charges or a trial for 3 years and 153 days. Violating principles which originated with the Magna Charta, and which are clearly embedded in our Constitution, the federal government has denied Padilla due process under the law. In our Constitutional republic, civilian authority is meant to supersede military authority, yet Padilla remains in military custody. While Padilla's plight remains abstract to many Americans because it is not happening to them or someone they know, the Padilla situation demonstrates our government's newly self-endowed power to declare any US citizen an enemy combatant (or "terrorist) and hold them without a trial. Do we toss the Constitution in the trash, recycle it to help save a tree, or keep it as a relic of the past to remind the ruling elite just how bad it can get for them?

Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay serve as further harbingers of the collapse of the Constitutional republic in the United States. Once deemed unimaginable, torture inflicted by the "shining beacon of truth and justice" has been exposed to the light of day. While the Bush administration "cleanses its sins" by punishing the enlisted soldiers who were carrying out their orders to inflict prisoner abuse, it has promoted Alberto Gonzalez, the architect of the US torture policies, to the position of chief law enforcement officer in the United States. How ironic (and frightening) can it get?

Justice, one of the lofty ideals which the United States supposedly exemplifies, is non-existent for those at Guantanamo Bay accused of "terror". If those in US custody committed crimes or perpetrated attacks against the United States, I favor punishing them to the extent of the law. However, in denying them due process, we have become the very tyrants our government professes to oppose. Try them or release them

"Patriots" champion the "nobility cause" for the aristocracy

Since World War II, the United States has aggressively vied to expand its empire through covert CIA operations, support of ruthless dictators who support US interests, economic manipulation, and direct military intervention. While many readers who email me agree with my condemnations of US state terrorism (which has resulted in the murder of millions of innocent civilians), a surprising number of bellicose, mean-spirited individuals have indicated their strong support for such actions. The wealthy elite, who are the true power-brokers in our nation, thrive on the support of such spiritually shallow individuals who are blind to their own malevolence and hypocrisy. Rallying for the cause of "conservatism" in the face of the "weak", "whining" liberals, these blindly patriotic individuals readily accept the false dichotomies such as the "good American Christians" versus the "bad Islamofascists perpetuated by government shills like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. While these "patriots" wave the flag and rush to label those who dare to challenge the actions of the hallowed US government as traitors, Communists, or even terrorists, they unwittingly advance the cause of history's deadliest and most powerful terrorist, the federal government of the United States of America.

Forget "the majority rules": He who has the gold rules

Ironically, many supporters of the current paradigm in the United States still believe they are a majority. On September 24 in Washington DC, I marched with over 300,000 others who support peace and social justice, and who oppose the Bush regime. The next day, about 400 Bush supporters "rallied". According to the Associate Press, a very recent AP-Ipsos poll shows that 28% of Americans believe the country is headed in the "right direction" while 66% believe our nation is "on the wrong track. The truth is that the enemies of peace and social justice are in power because they carefully constructed a powerful propaganda and campaign finance machine, not because they represent a majority of Americans, interests. The fraudulent presidential "victory" of 2000 represents their crowning achievement. Protecting corporate and aristocratic interests is their goal, and they are accomplishing it quite handily.

Despite the Machiavellian efforts of men like Karl Rove, the Tom Delay indictments, Delay's connections with the Blunts, and the ongoing investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald could spell significant trouble for Bush, his corrupt cronies, and his allies in Congress. Possibly there is enough integrity and power left in the US legal system to derail, or at least postpone, the obscene power grab by the wealthy in the United States. Sadly though, even if things end grievously for the current regime of aristocrats, the American people will need to work vigorously to prevent a new one from emerging.

Regardless of its legal difficulties, or perhaps because of them, the Bush regime continues to push the United States closer to the precipice of overt rule by an elite few. As many of their Religious Right supporters demand a literal interpretation of the Bible, the elite power brokers in the US government continue chanting their litany calling for a literal interpretation of the Constitution. Lambasting the actions of judges who "legislate from the bench", they continue their insistence on judicial nominees who will "strictly interpret the Constitution". Despite my disgust, I admire their strategic brilliance. Tyranny thrives on reducing the populace to "black and white" thinkers. Iron-fisted rulers crush dissent from those who attempt to introduce thorny complexities which threaten the simplistic propaganda with which they manipulate their subjects. Our leaders know that if the American public accepts the absurd notion that there is no room for subjective interpretation of the Constitution to adapt to the changes that come with the passage of time, they can utilize the Supreme Court as an accomplice in crushing the gains made by the social justice movement in the Twentieth Century. The white, wealthy patriarchy is salivating over the prospect of its return to unabated power.

How many guns do you need? There are hungry people here

In the battle of guns versus butter in the United States, guns are winning by a crushing margin. As the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina clearly demonstrated, the militarization of America has severely weakened the capacity and the will of the federal government to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. Despite being the wealthiest nation in history, 13% of our citizens live below the poverty level and the US is the only industrialized nation which does not provide health care to 100% of its citizens. There is no excuse for the existence of poverty in a nation with such vast resources. The aristocrats build their fortunes on the backs of the poor and working class, and the incestuous relationship between the federal government and the corporate vehicles of the wealthy is one of their primary means of maintaining the gross disparity of wealth which exists in the United States. Former President Eisenhower warned us against allowing the military industrial complex to become too dominant, but as Andy Rooney recently opined on 60 Minutes, we ignored Ike's sage advice.

Among other things, Rooney said:

"We still have 139,000 soldiers in Iraq today.

Almost 2,000 Americans have died there. For what?

Now we have the hurricanes to pay for. One way our government pays for a lot of things is by borrowing from countries like China.

Another way the government is planning to pay for the war and the hurricane damage is by cutting spending for things like Medicare prescriptions, highway construction, farm payments, AMTRAK, National Public Radio and loans to graduate students. Do these sound like the things you'd like to cut back on to pay for Iraq?

I'll tell you where we ought to start saving: on our bloated military establishment.

We're paying for weapons we'll never use.

No other Country spends the kind of money we spend on our military. Last year Japan spent $42 billion. Italy spent $28 billion, Russia spent only $19 billion. The United States spent $455 billion."

One hand washes the other, brother

I have received a great deal of correspondence from "patriots" who state that Americans in the peace and social justice movement owe a debt of gratitude to the people who have served in the US military for protecting our freedoms from external threats. There is truth to this, and therefore I say thank you to those who have served in the military. Meanwhile, I will remind the "patriots that they have the social justice movement to thank for protecting their rights from the internal threat of the US government. We may not be winning (but then neither is the US military in Iraq), yet we remain in the struggle, and will not relent. You are welcome.

It is about expanding the empire, not defending the homeland.

I do respect those who have served in the US military with the intent to defend our nation. However, with the exception of World War II, wars waged by the United States have not been defensive in nature. Too often, our imperialist government has used US soldiers as pawns in wars of aggression waged under the guise of "protecting" or "spreading" democracy. To maintain the obscene profits of entities like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, our government has sold many Americans on the notion that wild hordes of barbarians stand ready to storm the "castle gates" of our nation to rape our women and plunder our wealth. Even if that were the case (and it is not), the United States could mount a viable defense on much less than $500 billion per year.

I believe in achieving goals through non-violence, but I am not a pacifist. I own a gun and would not hesitate to act to protect my family in the event of a real threat to their safety. As individuals have the right to defend themselves and their families, nations possess the same right. Yet why does the United States, a nation representing 5% of the world's population, need to account for 50% of annual world military expenditures while maintaining military bases in 130 countries? Were I to follow my government's example, I would fill several rooms of our home with a variety of munitions and explosives, and hire a squadron of private militia to patrol our city, simply to ensure my family's safety.

Beware what you wish for.

While the avid supporters of the American Empire scorn those who support a greater emphasis on the betterment of humanity, the military they are so quick to deify is poised to nullify the very freedoms it purportedly exists to protect. Throughout history, the state has been a threat to the freedom of individuals. The principle weapon of government to impose its will upon the people has been the military. For many years, the US government has carefully crafted a covert tyranny of the wealthy through the use of media and propaganda, but as more Americans awaken to the true nature of their state, the Bush regime is becoming more eager to employ its unparalleled military power on the domestic front.

Posse Comitatus, a law which essentially prevents the military from policing the domestic populace, represents a thin veneer of protection against the imposition of martial law. Since it is statutory law and not derived from the Constitution, it can be altered or nullified by further legislation. Reagan trampled Posse Comitatus when he used the Air Force and Navy to fight the "war on drugs. Bush told us in his address during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that he wants to expand federal authority and the military's role in domestic matters. In his recent press conference he told us that he will press Congress for the authority to employ martial law in the event of an Avian Flu pandemic. The presence of Blackwater paramilitary security forces and the emphasis of property protection over saving human lives in New Orleans provided a glimpse of what the Bush regime has in store for America's citizenry.

Based on reader feedback I have received, it is apparent that a fair number of Americans are prepared to sacrifice what freedoms they still have for the "security afforded them by increased federal and military authority. Obviously they have not read Orwell, or if they have, apparently did not take his ideas seriously. The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security have broadened federal powers and seriously infringed upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. One of the most dangerous aspects of the Patriot Act is that it empowers law enforcement to act outside of the system of checks and balances so crucial to our Constitutional republic. Consolidation of FEMA into Homeland Security was one of the causes of the feeble federal response to the disaster in New Orleans. To those so eager to rush to the "secure embrace" of Big Brother, I would remind you that the fates of Jose Padilla, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, the residents of New Orleans, or even those of the Japanese citizens interned during World War II could befall you.

As Benjamin Franklin once said:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

In 1935, Sinclair Lewis published It Can't Happen Here, his depiction of a "democratically elected" US president imposing a tyranny on Americans. In 2005, life is imitating art. However, there are those of us who are willing to sacrifice and endure whatever is necessary for the cause of a more humane and just government and society. I will stay in the United States to work for something better. I will continue to teach my children to struggle for social causes. And yes, I will persist in my writing and other forms of dissent against the tyranny of the aristocracy, regardless of the consequences.

Jason Miller is a 38 year old activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. He works in the transportation industry, and is a husband and a father to three boys. His affiliations include Amnesty International, the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/.