Thursday, July 26, 2007

Reviewing Michael Parenti's "Democracy For the Few"

Reviewing Michael Parenti's "Democracy For the Few" - by Stephen Lendman

Michael Parenti is an internationally known speaker and award winning author of 20 books and hundreds of articles. He's also a noted academic having taught at a number of colleges and universities in the US and abroad.

Parenti is also one of the nation's leading progressive political analysts and social critics. He strongly opposes US imperialism, the shredding of our civil liberties, decline of our social state, and the Bush Doctrine of preventive wars on the world for predatory capitalism's need for new markets, resources and cheap exploitable labor.

Parenti's latest book, and subject of this review, is the newly updated eight edition of one of his most noted and popular earlier ones - Democracy For the Few. In it, he shows how democracy in the nation really works. It dispels the fiction Americans are practically weaned on from birth, taught in school to the highest levels, and get daily from the dominant media.

Parenti's view is quite different from the mainstream's suppression of the "shadier sides of US political life." He explains "proponents of the existing social order have tried to transform practically every deficiency in the US political system into a strength." They want us to believe "millions of nonvoters are content with present social conditions, (and) the growing concentration of executive power is a good thing because the president is democratically responsive to broad national interests (ones affecting the public)." They tell us "exclusion of third parties" makes our system work better, and all state vices are, in fact, virtues. Those popularly presented views turn reality on it head in a nation dedicated to wealth and power interests since inception. It only ever yields a little (and grudgingly) when forced to by grassroots activism or in periods of social crisis like The Great Depression to save what elitists value most - the soul and substance corporate capitalist America.

Parenti addresses the nature of American capitalism that's the beating heart of our politico-economic system. He covers our political institutions, the "foundations and historical development of American political politics....Who governs....Who gets what, when, how and why." Central to ask is cui bono? Who benefits and who doesn't is key to his core theme showing how power, wealth and class dominate America and the notion of real democracy is pure illusion. Today, America the beautiful only exists for the privileged few and no one else. But it's always been that way in a nation ruled by rich white, predominantly Christian elitist men from birth. Parenti deconstructs our system, from its roots, in 19 incisive, thought provoking chapters, encyclopedic in depth, and up to date to the current age of George Bush neocon rule.

This review covers them all briefly to convey a full flavor of his important book, all of which needs to be digested and understood. It's must reading and should be kept as an essential reference guide for future examination and reflection. Knowing its contents is key to arousing enough public concern for change in our own self-interest. In the age of George Bush's America, and his coterie of extremist rogues, the issue is now survival at a time a reckless leadership threatens everyone with potential nuclear or ecological Armageddon because of their lust for wealth, power and empire.

Without public awareness, angst and plain determination not to take it any more, this agenda will continue with potential consequences too disturbing to ignore. It doesn't have to happen if enough people know the danger, collectively act to defuse it in self-defense, and decide to make the country work for everyone. Parenti dedicates his book to them - "To all those who struggle for peace, social justice, and real democracy. May their numbers continue to grow."

Partisan Politics Favoring the Privileged

Privilege always counted most from the time the nation was founded. The prevailing fiction then and now is an egalitarian country "free from the extremes of want and wealth that characterized (18th century) Europe" and most parts of the world today. It was as untrue then as now with wealthy 18th century colonialists having vast disproportional land holdings and control of banking, commerce and industry, such as it was back then.

These "wealthy and powerful 'gentlemen,' our founding fathers," gathered in 1787 in the same Philadelphia State House where the Declaration of Independence was signed 11 years earlier. They came to draft a Constitution intended to last into "remote futurity" for their interests alone. Democracy for the many was not on the table in 1787.

Yet, they nominally managed to include unimaginable freedoms, up to that time, in the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791. They gave people the rights of free expression, religion, peaceable assembly, protection from illegal searches and seizures, due process and more even though it only got done through compromise after these ideas were twice rejected earlier. The delegates finally agreed out of necessity to get their document ratified and avoid a second convention some states wanted. To do it, they had to win over dissenting state representatives who wanted Bill of Rights protections for their own propertied interests.

They weren't added to the Constitution as a democratic gesture to "the people" who were nowhere in sight then or henceforth. As history later showed repeatedly, the entire Constitution was flawed from the start as governments, then and later, freely and willfully ignored and set aside these less than inviolate freedoms as Presidents Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, Johnson, Nixon, George W. Bush, and many others easily were able to do and often did.

Overall, "the Constitution was consciously designed as a conservative document" the way the framers wanted it to be. They achieved their aims with provisions in it, or omitted by intent, to "resist the pressure of popular tides" and protect "a rising bourgeoisie('s)" freedom to "invest, speculate, trade, and accumulate wealth" the way things work for capital interests today. It was to codify the law to let the country be run the way politician, jurist and nation's first Chief Supreme Court justice, John Jay, said it should be - for "The people who own the country....to run it (for their benefit alone)."

Benjamin Franklin was reportedly asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention whether the 55 attending delegates created a monarchy or republic. He responded "A republic, if you can keep it" without acknowledging notions of an egalitarian nation were stillborn at its birth. It was true then and now in spite of all the pretense contrived to portray an idealized society, in fact, always out of reach for most in it.

This is Parenti's dominant theme - of a government, since inception, serving the privileged few at the expense of the neglected or exploited many. That's hardly a textbook definition of democracy, yet it's the model one we're taught to believe we have serving everyone equally. Parenti says his book is intended to show how vital it is for everyone to critically examine our society as a step toward improving it. He stresses a nation's greatness is measured by its freedom from "poverty, racism, sexism, exploitation, imperialism....environmental devastation," and a fundamental opposition to war and pursuit of peace everywhere. Benjamin Franklin also said "There never was a good war or bad peace," a notion unimaginable to our leaders today.

Wealth and Want in the United States Getting More Extreme

Parenti distinguishes between society's owner and worker classes with the latter paid much less than the value they create. He calls corporations "organizational devices" to exploit labor and accumulate capital with working people being society's real producers. Publicly owned corporations are the dominant institution of our time existing for one purpose only, mandated by law - to maximize the value of shareholders' equity by increasing sales and profits, securing new markets, and continuing to grow in size and dominance or be left behind. Their success is measured by their concentrated, virtual-monopoly size today. Of the world's 100 largest economies, 51 are corporations, more US-based ones than from any other country. Noam Chomsky calls them "private tyrannies."

They're run by wealthy and powerful figures comprising, along with other elites, the top 1% of the nation's affluent. Today they own 40 - 50% of the country's wealth in the form of stocks, bonds, land, natural resources, business assets and other investments. In contrast, 90% of American families have little or no net worth after mortgage and other debt burdens are taken into account. Parenti stresses America has the highest level of inequality of all developed nations, the country is rigidly structured by class, and most people die in the same class they were born into. It debunks the notion of "a land of opportunity" for everyone.

It's for CEOs who are practically deified in today's business press. They're hugely over-paid powerful figures gaining wealth at the expense of their rank and file. In 1965, they earned, on average, 24 times more than workers, in 1973 it was 45 times, in 1990 85 times, and in 2004 an astonishing 431 times as the disparity in wealth continues growing to levels economist Paul Krugman calls "unprecedented." In the last generation, worker productivity grew, but wages didn't keep up with inflation, and essential benefits declined and are disappearing. Corporations rely on downsizing and offshoring manufacturing and other high-paying jobs to cheap labor markets to reduce costs and raise profits. They maintain lean labor forces, rely heavily on part-time workers, are hostile to unions, and achieve the benefits of a huge reserve army of unemployed or underemployed to contain wage pressures.

Working people suffer the effects. Since 1999, consumer debt grew at twice the rate of their income, millions live in poverty, many more millions just above it, far more still have inadequate or no health insurance or other safety net protections, and defenseless children and single mothers (many black and other minorities) suffer most. Parenti sums up America's dark side, unreported in the mainstream. Our nation "squanders our national resources, exploits and underpays our labor, and creates privation and desperate social needs serving the few" at the expense of the many. It mocks the notion of a egalitarian democratic society serving all its people and shames the nation for unjustifyably claiming it.

Our Plutocratic Culture Defiles Our Nominal Democracy

Parenti stresses America is a plutocracy, run predominantly by hugely affluent business people in industry and commerce, the dominant media as well as others in academia, entertainment, the clergy, and private foundations and charities. They spread the false gospel that "capitalism breeds democracy and prosperity" ignoring how democratic freedoms are incompatible with acquisitive corporate free-enterprise thriving on the exploitation of the majority everywhere.

Parenti asks "What about (forgotten) values relating to justice, health, occupational and consumer safety, regard for future generations, and accountability in government" along with concern for the environment, an educated and informed citizenry, affordable housing, worker rights, and peace on earth and an end to wars and conflict. In a "capitalist democracy," we're on our own, able to have anything if we can pay for it. The result is an enormous growing disparity between haves and have-nots and an uncaring government unwilling to help the ones in greatest need. That's "The Other America" Michael Harrington wrote about 45 years ago that aroused John Kennedy's concern in ways unimaginable in today's age of greed and imperial arrogance.

A Constitution for the Privileged Few Alone

The origins of republican America were addressed above - to create a nominally democratic government Adam Smith said should be "instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor." The nation's founders achieved mightily, handing down their legacy to succeeding generations of leaders always mindful of who gave them power and who they had to serve. At the nation's birth, only adult white male property owners could vote; blacks were commodities, not people; and women were childbearing and homemaking appendages of their husbands.

Religious prerequisites existed until 1810, and all adult white males couldn't vote until property and tax requirements were dropped in 1850. States elected senators until the 17th amendment in 1913 gave citizen voters that right, and Native Americans had no franchise in their own land until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act gave them back what no one had the right to take away in the first place. Women's suffrage wasn't achieved until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920 after nearly 100 years of struggling for it.

The 1865 13th Amendment freed black slaves, the 1870 15th Amendment gave them the right to vote, but it wasn't until passage of the landmark Civil and Voting Rights Acts in the mid-1960s, abolishing Southern Jim Crow laws, that blacks could vote, in fact, like the Constitution said they could decades earlier. Today those rights are gravely weakened for all through unfair laws still in force and a nation growing more repressive and less responsive to the needs of ordinary working people and the nation's least advantaged. The limited high-water mark of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society has steadily eroded since in loss of civil liberties and essential social benefits.

Rise of the Corporate State that Rules Our Lives and the World

Parenti explains how, contrary to popular view, the history of America was marked by "violent class struggles, with the government" siding with "big business." Native peoples were slaughtered for their land and resources, large landowners and corporations exploited slave labor, and limited labor rights were only won through pain and struggle. Government always sided with business interests "gorg(ing) themselves at the public trough, battening on such government handouts and protections as tariffs, subsidies, land grants, and government contracts." Along the way, the public got pathetically little.

Governments also handed down friendly legislation and court decisions favoring wealth and power over ordinary people consigned to low wages, few or no benefits, unemployment, unsafe work conditions, child labor, poverty, and few of the rights democratic states are supposed to afford but don't in America. It hardly mattered who was president, Democrat or Republican, Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft or Calvin Coolidge. "Silent Cal" belied his reticence proclaiming what all presidents swear allegiance to - that "The business of America is business," and government officials, chief executives and others in high places better not forget it.

They never did, even during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, "an era commonly believed to have brought great transformations on behalf of (what FDR called) 'the forgotten man.' " Roosevelt was a patrician allied with business interests trying to save capitalism in America from meeting the same fate as in Czarist Russia in 1917. That was job one, and giving a little to save the system was a small price to pay.

It showed in the National Recovery Act (NRA) benefitting corporations by restricting production and setting minimum price requirements. "The federal housing program subsidized construction firms and loan insurance for mortgage bankers." Price supports and production cutbacks advantaged corporate agriculture. Only faced with mass unrest were relief programs created to relieve human need. So some real democratic gains were achieved, most notably essential social welfare legislation. Key but short-lived was the passage of the landmark Wagner Act in 1935 establishing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It gave labor the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management for the first time ever, an achievement the repressive 1947 Taft-Hartley Act began undoing that's now lost altogether.

Parenti sums up the era as follows: "the New Deal era hardly adds up to a great triumph for the common people" with government mostly being responsive to the will and needs of corporate capitalism. It was true then but far more so now through "subsidies, services and protections that business could not provide for itself" and even plenty of them they can but don't have to because government largess (with our tax dollars) does it for them.

Politics: Who Gets What? Who's Left Out?

Parenti explains today we have a corporate state writ large with government taxing the many (the public) to subsidize the few (the privileged). This practice has been especially pernicious since WW II when the US emerged as the only dominant nation left standing. "Moderate" Republican Dwight Eisenhower gave private corporations the equivalent (in today's dollars) of $300 billion worth of offshore oil reserves, public lands and utilities, atomic installations and much more in what Parenti and others call "socialism for the rich." The rest of us are on our own, sink or swim, under free-market capitalism. It's heralded as the American way.

Today, corporate giants get multi-billions in all kinds of handouts we pay for. They come in tax breaks, price supports, loan guarantees (many never repaid), bailouts, marketing services, export subsidies, R & D grants, free use of the public broadcasting spectrum, and huge subsidies and other government-directed benefits proving "big government" works great and business loves it. The system works by socializing costs and privatizing profits "in an enormous upward redistribution of income from the working populace to the corporate rich."

Even the tax system works to corporate advantage with corporations today paying, on average, a tiny 7.4% of their revenues compared to 49% in the 1950s. No need asking who makes up the difference in revenue lost, but it's even worse than that. Sixty percent of US corporations pay no income taxes, and many profitable ones get rebates. That's reality in today's America with government showering business with a tsunami of benefits and ordinary working people paying for them in a huge upward distribution of income now way exceeding one trillion dollars annually and rising.

The US Global Military Empire Threatens Everyone

The US emerged from WW II as the world's dominant superpower. Today it's the only one, and it throws its weight around recklessly proving it. First, it spends more on the military than all other nations combined. It has many hundreds of military bases worldwide including many secret ones that by some unofficial estimates number around 1000 large, medium and smaller ones. In Iraq alone in May, 2005, the Pentagon acknowledged having 106 bases including permanent super ones the size of small towns with all their amenities included.

Further, the US is recklessly embarked on new super-weapons building programs, including nuclear ones, in defiance of arms control and reduction and other treaties it renounces unilaterally. It's aim is "full spectrum dominance" of all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with intent to fight preventive wars of aggression against any potential challengers to its status as lord and master of the universe.

Money is no object or restraint toward this aim with the Pentagon unable to account for multi-billions annually from waste, fraud and abuse no one in government cares about. After all, it's taxpayer money payouts to corporate fraudsters in lieu of funding essential public services and having regard for environmental protections. It's spent on a reckless imperial agenda claimed for national security at home and to spread democracy abroad to nations having none. In fact, it's what Parenti calls "defending the capitalist world from social change" - even the peaceful and democratic kind seen as a threat to corporate interests.

Since WW II, it's been a US-led "global bloodletting" through wars of aggression, CIA-instigated coups and political assassinations, and supporting a rogue's gallery of S.O.B. tyrants as long as they're our S.O.B.s. The list of them earlier and now is near-endless. They serve the US empire well and its corporate giants hugely at the expense of ordinary people everywhere. Parenti rightfully calls America "the greatest imperialist power in world history." It's also the greatest of all threats to humanity from possible nuclear or environmental Armageddon.

Health and Human Services - Victims of Corporate Capitalism

Parenti explains even plutocratic rulers have to make concessions at times, but for the last generation hard won earlier gains have eroded. He names some of them:

-- the WIC program aiding women, infants and children;

-- AFDC aid to needy families with dependent children wiped out by Clinton's welfare reform;

-- SSI supplemental income for the blind, disabled and low income persons;

-- food stamps;

-- child nutrition help and school lunch program;

-- nursing home assistance for indigent elderly;

-- legal services for the poor;

-- remedial education;

-- maternal and child health care;

- student grants and other aid;

-- drug treatment;

-- Medicare and Medicaid reductions, and much more.

The result is "more hunger, isolation, unattended illness," homelessness, untreated illness and more "for those with the fewest economic resources and the least political clout."

The picture's even bleaker with states and private charities unable to make up for what Washington eliminates, and rising costs of essential services like health care means tens of millions unable to afford what everyone must have. The plutocrats' solution: privatize everything including the most successful government poverty-reducing program ever - Social Security. For now, efforts to do it stalled, but the scheme won't go away. Wall Street is drooling over the possibility of getting a huge cut out of what seniors, "survivors," and the disabled badly need in retirement and/or supplemental income. The plutocratic sharks will be back trying again to steal what they haven't gotten so far.

Parenti covers other areas where public need and welfare are sacrificed to plutocratic greed - occupational safety, ergonomic standards, untested chemicals and additives in foods, factory farms polluting ground water, minimum wages kept low in spite of the recent inadequate increase taking 10 years to get, disappearing low-cost housing, and education falling victim to reduced funding and efforts to let private pirates teach our kids wanting only to profit most by doing the least.

Then, there's what Parenti calls "mess transit." Mass transit rails efficiency and low fuel consumption got Big Oil and Big Auto to doom the system, another victim of plutocratic greed. It got us dirty air, global warming, 42,000 annual needless highway deaths and huge numbers of accidents and injuries, clogged highways, congested inner-cities, and an enormous expense to many car owners struggling to afford what many wouldn't need if efficient mass transit served them. Parenti's conclusion - "Once again public service was treated as something to be eliminated rather than be improved." The public ends up the loser.

The Last Environment Becoming the Lost One

Parenti explains privilege and power give plutocrats the right to "expropriate and use....whatever natural resources" they want, "while passing off their diseconomies (or externalities) onto others." He means maximizing profit and minimizing costs by dumping huge amounts of deadly toxins on land, in water, and in the air. Corporate giants are licensed to strip mine rapaciously, clear-cut forests, turn rain forests in wastelands, harm natural species and wildlife, erode topsoil by harmful chemical farming, sell unsafe and untested foods and drugs, destroy the ozone layer, increase global warming, and threaten human health and welfare, all for the sake of greater profits.

For their crimes, "corporate polluters are more often rewarded than punished" with lucrative contracts to clean up the mess they made. They gain at public expense twice over. They're allowed to foul the environment, then get us to pay the cost "for the private sector's diseconomies." The alternate approach is obvious but untaken because it's bad for business. So Parenti concludes "An infinitely expanding capitalism and fragile, finite ecology are on a calamitous collision course. Our very survival hangs in the balance." But for corporate predators, that's someone else's problem after they're gone.

Unequal before the Law Favoring Elites

Crime in the suites prevails in America because the law is usually written and enforced "to favor the very rich over the rest of us." Put another way, the rule of law depends on who it's intended for or aimed against. Corporate crime is far more costly in lives and money than crimes on streets. Even worse, what's uncovered is the tip of the iceberg, and the worst corporate crimes go unpunished - exploiting people everywhere for profit, fouling the environment, and profiting hugely from destructive wars. Then there's growing mass poverty from neoliberal globalized trade; turning a blind eye to corporate complicity in drugs trafficking; money laundering; underpaying employees; union busting; waste, fraud and abuse on government contracts generally ignored; insider trading rarely caught or prosecuted, and more and more.

In contrast, steal a few tomatoes to feed your hungry kids and face stiff prison terms, and do it three times in states like California and many others and get life sentences. In an age of neocon rule, it's hardly surprising the Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 in March, 2003 such harsh sentences don't violate the Constitution's Eight Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Parenti cites the cases of a Virginia man sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for stealing 87 cents and a Houston youth getting an incredible 50 years for robbing two people of a dollar.

A nation treating its people this way is one gone mad by its brazen defiance of democratic justice exposed as a pipe dream for ordinary people and an impossible one for the least advantaged, people of color and anyone happening to be Muslim in an age of the concocted "war on terrorism." Then there's the other phony "war on drugs" that's just an ugly scheme to fill prison cells, take restless minorities off the streets so they don't get more restless, and build a huge criminal justice system as another avenue for profit. Those homeland wars and the long-standing one on the poor and least advantaged left the US with the largest prison population in the world at 2.2 million that's rising by 1000 new inmates weekly.

It's the shame of the nation and was the subtitle this writer used in 2006 for an in-depth article called "The US Gulag Prison System" referring to the one at home. Everyone pays for it including taxpayers and the mothers and children left behind on their own to fend for themselves. Not the families of corporate fraudsters, however, whose offending members rarely serve time if caught, do it in country club prisons if they do, and get short sentences and affordable fines made easier by automatic early releases.

Then there are government criminals caught, tried and convicted. They just enter the presidential commutation and pardon queue awaiting their turn, like I. Lewis Libby, that usually comes up before they ever serve a day in soft-on-crime prisons. In America, it's called justice. In this review, it's called outrageous.

Political Repression and National Security Under Police State Rules

Parenti puts it this way: "The corporate-dominated state is more sincerely dedicated to fighting dissent than fighting organized crime" including in the suites where the worst of it's committed. So we have the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and NORTHCOM protecting the rich by coming down hard on the rest of us if we have "dangerous thoughts" or support "peace and social justice organizations." Corporations can fire employees with the "wrong political opinions." Secret courts can order secret surveillances, render secret decisions and keep no published records.

We can be wiretapped; illegally searched; have our possessions seized; and now declared an "enemy combatant," denied due process and sacred habeas corpus rights, and "renditioned" to a torture-prison hellholes for indefinite incarceration and trial by a military tribunal with no right of appeal or legitimate access to proper legal help. That's today's America where anyone disagreeing with George Bush can end up a political prisoner in a nation claiming to have none. We've always had them with shameful examples to prove it like Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) leaders like Big Bill Haywood who had to leave the country to avoid serving time, others in the IWW, socialist leader Eugene Debs, and radicals Sacco and Vanzetti made to pay for crimes they never committed.

Then there were WW II and Korean War resisters arrested for their beliefs and 120,000 law-abiding Japanese Americans sent to US-based concentration camps because of their ancestry in time of war with the country most were never born in. There was repressive legislation going back to John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalizing dissent in his day. There was Woodrow Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts that were just as punitive. There was the 1940 Smith Act making anti-capitalist dissent a crime. There were jailings of African American leaders in the civil rights struggles, and today there are mass witch-hunt roundups and unlawful detentions of Muslims because of their faith and Latino immigrants persecuted twice over. Destructive trade agreements like NAFTA destroyed their livelihoods, forcing them here for work unavailable at home. Then, once here, they're treated like criminals if caught or ruthlessly exploited by employers as virtual serfs.

There were Black Panther leaders murdered in their sleep like Fred Hampton, Jr. in Chicago and others imprisoned on spurious charges like Geronimo Pratt (now a free man after being held 20 years in jail unjustly). There's Mumia Abu-Jamal framed for a murder he didn't commit, denied due process, confined to prison on death row for the past 25 years still hoping for a new trial to vindicate himself. There were American Indian Movement leaders like Leonard Peltier also framed for a murder he didn't commit and still incarcerated after 30 years. Add to these, Puerto Rican nationalists, peace and environmental activists, and others still fighting for their civil rights and right to dissent.

In all the above instances, "unworthy" victims paid for the crimes of their "worthy" victimizers. Parenti documents these and other examples of a repressive state apparatus protecting the rich from their exploited victims daring to resist. He sums it up saying "under the guise of 'fighting communism, fighting terrorism, protecting US interests, keeping us safe, or defending democracy, the purveyors of state power have committed horrendous crimes against the (innocent) people of this and other countries, violating human rights and the Constitution....to make the world safe for profit, privilege, and pillage." It's called democracy-American-style.

Who Governs? For Whom? Who Has No Say?

Who else? Those controlling society's wealth "exercise trusteeship over educational institutions, foundations, think tanks, publications, (and) mass media" as well as having political and economic power over the nation's business. The ruling class is comprised mainly of wealthy white, Judeo-Christian corporate elites whose mission it is "to secure the interests of the wealthy class."

That means relations with labor are quite the opposite and quite successful with union membership currently around 12% overall and only 7.4% in the private sector. That's down from its post-war 1950s peak of 34.7%. Today, organized labor is at its lowest ebb since the beginning of the mass unionization struggles of the 1930s and in the private sector in over 100 years. It's because of Democrat and Republican hostility to organized labor as well as corporations threatening plant closures and outsourcing forcing pay and benefit cuts and unions to lose out overall. The situation is grim with wealth and power firmly in charge and ordinary working people losing out. There's no mystery about how to fix the problem. But it can only happen through mass collective action by organized people confronting organized money. There's a lot more of us than them.

It's not easy, however, in an age of glorified globalization promoting the phony notion it lifts all boats. Ralph Nader explains the rising tide only lifts all yachts at a time corporate giants' power is immense. It exceeds the rights of all sovereign states they operate in making them the ones that rule the world. They do it with one-sided unfair "free trade" agreements like NAFTA and DR-CAFTA. They and the World Trade Organization (WTO) super-state have power to "overrule or dilute any laws of any nation deemed to burden" corporate capital. WTO rules deny their sovereignty when it conflicts with corporate-mandated trade rules written for them. No sovereign right is sacred and none can interfere even in cases of harmful products and services member nations aren't allowed to prohibit. Secret WTO panels alone have the final say in trade disputes that always side with business because that's where their ruling members come from.

Meanwhile, the Constitution is null and void even though its preamble nominally states power rests with the people, not a corporate-run trade body making secret rulings putting its members above the law of the land. Parenti calls this "a coup d'etat by international finance capital....a logical extension of imperialism, a victory of empire over republic (and) corporate capital over democracy" that our own government does nothing to counteract because it supports these practices. It's not supposed to be that way, or so we learned in school. But that's how it is and won't change until we end "free trade" and replace it with trade that's "fair" for "the interests of the many rather than the greed of the few." We have miles to go and haven't even begun the journey.

The Shame of the Mass Media That's A Mess

Corporate giants rule the nation, the world and the nation's dominant means of communicating to the people through the mass media using public airwaves and the large print publications they control. In that capacity, they're the nation's thought control police gatekeepers filtering in information they want reported and suppressing what's hostile to state and corporate interests. Today, they're more able than ever to do it. Since 1983, the number of corporations controlling most newspapers, magazines, book publishers, movie studios, and electronic media shrunk from 50 to six global media Goliaths - Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, Viacom, Germany-based Bertelsmann, and Rupert Murdock's News Corporation. Add to them cable giant Comcast and it's a not so "magnificent seven."

Their owners decide what's aired and what isn't and news reporters, commentators and so-called pundits know the rules. If someone forgets, they'll end up in newspaper Siberia reporting obits or on TV off-camera at best, not on it. Those playing by the rules aren't cheated, however, even though they cheat us. On TV especially, many earn handsome salaries, good benefits and lucrative speaking engagements and book deals. Lying for the state and corporate bosses pays well. It's why the queue is long with many in it awaiting their chance for a big payday. Those of conscience and progressive leanings need not apply. Few get space in print or on-air except as setup patsies matched against hoards of conservative ideologues preaching wars are good and corporations free to pillage and plunder will make the world safe for democracy. Their job is to spread the "proper" message that excludes lots of ugliness harmful to ordinary people they ignore.

There is hope, however, and it shows up in alternate media spaces - on progressive web sites, like the one you're on now, and on small and independent radio and some TV in cities throughout the country where this writer airs a weekly "News and Information Hour" that tells the truth in-depth with noted guests. They need support and space to grow, and that's where the listening public comes in. They and we also need to join the struggle to save the last frontier of press freedom - to preserve Net Neutrality and keep this space out of predatory corporate media hands that want to control. They can't be allowed to get it nor will they if enough people-power unites to prevent it. At stake is what remains of a free, open and independent media. We can't afford to lose it to corporate giants wanting to take away what belongs to us.

Our Corrupted Electoral Process

It almost understates the problem saying our "electoral process is in need of serious rescue and repair." In large measure, it's on life-support barely hanging on and is now little more than theater in a nominal democracy serving the privileged alone. They make the rules in a dominant two-party duopoly, effectively keep out interloper alternative choices. While differences between both sides exist, on one issue they're united. They're both committed to waging imperial wars for predatory corporate capital's right to exploit workers, gain new markets, control the world's resources, and rule it without challenge. Unless that changes, whichever party wins elections won't matter. Neither one will serve popular interests, only privileged ones.

Our electoral system is structured to make it near impossible for both dominant parties to lose to a third party surprise. We have "winner take all" elections artificially magnifying major parties' strengths. Whichever party gets a plurality of votes (even if not a majority) wins 100% representation so parties on the short end getting lesser vote totals in congressional districts get no representation for their supporters. If we had a proportional representation system, it would be different as party representation would match the percent of votes it won.

Redistricting, as a function of decennial reapportionment, rigs the system as well especially when its most extreme gerrymandering method is used to maximize party strength in how district lines are drawn. Then there's the issue of campaign funding and where most of it comes from. It's not from the public supporting people-oriented candidates. It's from powerful corporate donors for candidates supporting their interests, and the amounts contributed are huge. They're in unrestricted soft money amounts to parties and evasions of the $5000 limit per candidate by donating in names of other family members, relatives, staff, the corner grocer or anyone else for the multi-millions needed for federal and many state elections today. All donations come with strings. We all know what they are and what's expected of winning candidates.

Then there's the issue of who gets to vote most people thought was settled long ago, but tell that to adult citizens in poor black and Latino districts and they'll say otherwise. Many are peremptorily stricken from the rolls the way many black voters in Florida were cheated in the 2000 elections. The same thing goes on in many states, it's illegal, but it happens anyway, and if discovered ex post facto it's too late to matter - case closed. In addition, 4.5 million Americans can't vote because of past criminal records, or they're currently in prison.

Then there's the issue of election theft in a nation where foxes now guard the henhouse under a system of privatized elections with more than 80% of 2004 votes cast and counted on corporate-owned electronic voting machines. Three Republican-supporting large corporations own, program, operate and count the votes using machines with no paper ballot receipts. The process makes it impossible to verify vote totals through recounts that will only produce the first total gotten, real or corrupted. It also makes a mockery of free, fair and open elections.

The process now is secretive and unreliable run by private interests with everything to gain if their candidates win. Based on clear evidence, that's exactly what's happening and will continue to until these machines are banned and independent civil servants run elections free from outside interference and do it with paper ballots counted by hand and saved. The way elections are run now, it's easy rigging the outcomes threatening to make our two-party monopoly "an even worse one-party tyranny" the way it's been under George Bush Republican rule with Democrat complicity helping out.

The Best Congress Money Can Buy with Its Members Having Plenty of Their Own

Parenti explains our founders created a system of checks and balances by separating government into executive, legislative and judicial branches, even though the idea sounded better than it actually was. Today it's barely noticeable with two branches overtly supporting the chief executive's right to do as he pleases with no effective check on his power or lawlessness. One reason is because of who gets to Congress and the courts. They're mostly plutocracy members in good standing there to take care of their own. Half of Senate members are millionaires, and one critic believes the lower body is more "a House of Lords" than a House of Representatives.

They're connected in an incestuous relationship with business and high-powered influence peddling lobbyists offering "succulent campaign contributions, fat lecture fees, easy-term loans (sometimes forgotten), pre-paid vacation jaunts, luxury resorts, four-star restaurants," choice seats at major sporting events and other monetary and other inducements for easily corrupted officials quick to sell their votes and integrity for the office they want to win and hold onto. It's all legal so long as explicit promises aren't made in exchange for money or monetary favors. Even when they are, few offenders are caught with exceptions like lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Representative Duke Cunningham and others long forgotten in the past. The scoundrels come from Congress, the administration, states, police and one vice-president.....so far.

Richard Nixon got off by resigning and getting Gerald Ford to pardon him as part of a shameless deal likely struck in advance with a willing seeker of the nation's highest office. So did Ronald Reagan for the Iran-Contra scandal and his vice-president, GHW Bush. Future judgment awaits the son for his crimes, far exceeding the father's that alone were pretty egregious as part of the Bush crime family's way of operating and, so far, getting off scott free.

It makes it hard imagining legislators will hold him or others accountable that's made no easier by the way Congress is structured. It's in about 20 standing committees, numerous subcommittees and chairmen of each with enough influence to make or block things from happening unless they goes against congressional consensus. So deals like NAFTA, "welfare reform," and the 1996 telecom giveaway were pretty much baked in the cake, and no committee chairman dared try blocking them.

Parenti explains how the "legislative labyrinth" affects the work of Congress, how staggered Senate terms of office blunt sweeping sentiment changes, and how the very structure of Congress keeps it conservative and supportive of privilege, not the electorate. He notes "legislative democracy (is) under siege," held virtual hostage by "the entire corporate social order" with its control of the nation's wealth, mass media, and whole network of powerful figures working for its interests. Under Republican/Bush neocon rule, it's even worse today from "reactionary forces within the legislature itself." Secrecy prevails, public interest is discarded, the rule of law is what the chief executive says it is, and free, open and fair elections are an illusion under a system where wealth and power choose the candidates and often determine who wins before voters go to the polls.

Hail to the Chief Executive

Along with his other roles as chief executive and commander in chief, the president is also the lead "promoter and guardian of global corporate capitalism," not democracy as we're made to believe. In this capacity, he surrounds himself with a coterie of corporate leaders and advisors from industry, Wall Street and other key areas of business with a dog in the fight to keep the world safe for capital.

Another key presidential role is being the nation's "chief liar." It involves preaching restraint while supporting extremes, saying tax cuts benefit ordinary people when they're earmarked for the rich and corporate giants, professing to be a peacemaker while preparing for war, and claiming to be an education president and friend of the earth while slashing funding for both to give big handouts to corporate friends who don't care about societal betterments.

Parenti covers much more in this section including "a loaded Electoral College" overriding the popular vote when the two disagree and individual Electors free to vote against the candidate "to whom they had been pledged." He also notes how presidents today are "would-be kings." They usurp powers far beyond what the Constitution allows like taking the nation to war when its Article I arrogates that authority solely to Congress. He freely uses executive privilege as well through executive orders, signing statements, emergency war powers and more that for George Bush means claiming "unitary executive" authority (unmentioned in the Constitution) to ignore the law and do as he pleases.

Parenti sums it up saying "executive power....advances the process of 'free-market' capital accumulation." Whoever occupies the White House, there won't "be much progressive change from the top....unless there is also mass social unrest and mobilization for fundamental reforms at the (grassroots) base. Until then, presidents will pursue their prerogatives and their (imperial) wars."

Bureaucracy in American Politics

Bureaucracy exists in all parts of society, public and private, but the government kind we're told is inefficient and should be minimized. It's so private interests can run everything because they supposedly do it better. Baloney. Unmentioned is private interests represent themselves, not society. That's why we need government in place serving everyone in ways private business won't because doing it hurts profits. The record makes the case. HMOs and other health insurance providers love healthy customers but discard the seriously ill; privatized, unregulated water and other utilities gouge their customers as much as they can get away with; and government-run Social Security is the most effective of all retirement programs for most people compared to private pension plan promises made and now abandoned by growing numbers of companies to save money.

Government also does what private business can't or won't like running the "much maligned post office" delivering first class mail anywhere in the country for 41 cents an ounce. It used to run a more efficient military until it privatized services in it, including 100,000 hugely overpaid paramilitary mercenaries, not the 30,000 phony number told the public. The changes accomplish nothing besides running up a big bill for taxpayers in a massively bloated and growing military budget that includes tens of billions off the books and mostly out of sight.

Much is done secretly with Congress helping administrations wage illegal wars, practice malfeasance and get away with all of it untouched because they're all in on the schemes. It ends up breeding a culture of unaccountability, waste, corruption, lawlessness, and no one's the wiser unless something important slips out by mistake. When it comes from whisleblowers, they're condemned and threatened making coming forward honorably a risk to their careers or worse in an atmosphere where dissent means supporting terrorism.

Parenti also explains how watchdog agencies like FDA, FCC, EPA, OSHA and others protect the industries they're supposed to monitor and regulate more than ever. So FCC supports further industry consolidation; EPA ignores dirty air, polluted groundwater and global warming; and FDA allows untested drugs and unsafe foods to be sold to consumers. These and other watchdog agencies promote profits, not the public interest or safety, and they're staffed by corporate foxes guarding our henhouse.

Public authority is also placed in private hands with federal lands, forests, water and other resources given to corporate interests. Then there's the so-called Federal Reserve System created in 1913 by Congress through one of their most outrageous and disastrous pieces of legislation ever, robbing the public welfare to enrich greedy bankers.

The System is a privately-owned for profit enterprise, not a government-run one as most people falsely believe. It illegally gave bankers authority Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution arrogates soley to Congress - the power to create and control the nation's money supply they use to charge government interest on its own money. In its near-94 year existence, this banking cartel pulled off the largest ever financial heist in world history by far. The Federal Reserve Act gave private bankers power to transfer wealth from government to profiteers with the public paying for it through taxes. In a 2006 article titled "Dirty Secrets of the Temple," this writer explained how they did it, how the system works, and the horrific consequences.

In it was mentioned what Parenti covers as well about Jack Kennedy's displeasure with the scheme that may have cost him his life. He wanted to end the Federal Reserve System to eliminate the national debt central bankers create by printing public money and loaning it to the government. On June 4, 1963, he issued presidential order EO 11110 giving the president authority to issue currency and ordered the US Treasury to print $4 billion worth of silver-backed "United States (Treasury) Notes" notes for starters replacing Federal Reserve (banking cartel) ones. Months later he was dead, and Lyndon Johnson rescinded his order.

Abraham Lincoln met the same fate that may have resulted from his getting Congress to pass the Legal Tender Act in 1862. It empowered the US Treasury to issue paper money called "greenbacks" so the government had it own money for the Civil War and didn't have to pay greedy bankers 24 - 36% interest they demanded for loans Lincoln needed. Right after the war ended, Lincoln was assassinated, the so-called Greenback law was rescinded shortly thereafter, and a new national banking act was passed making all money interest-bearing again.

The US "Supremes"

Parenti calls the Supreme Court an "aristocratic branch" of government as its member are appointed, serve for life and have great power for good or ill. They're also well paid and "enjoy expensive gifts and lavish trips paid for by corporations and other affluent interests" courting influence and getting it. High Court justices most always side with corporate America, and their decisions show it. Today, it's more obvious than ever with Court ideology conservative to reactionary (no liberals among them) in support of business and authoritarian government. But even well into the New Deal era in the 1930s, "the Supreme Court was the activist bastion of laissez-faire capitalism" that White House and public pressure finally changed by 1937 to get the Court to accept New Deal legislation.

Parenti explains how High Courts "opposed restrictions on capitalist power (overall), but supported restrictions on the civil liberties of persons who agitated against that power." In the past and now, "the Court treated the allegedly pernicious quality of a radical idea as evidence of its lethal efficacy and as justification for its suppression." So it was possible to convict communists or socialists under the Smith Act even though they only advocated a different economic system, not the forcible overthrow of the government that would be a crime. Dissenting ideas and beliefs are lawful under the First Amendment's right of free expression, but often in the past and now people exercising their constitutional right pay a stiff price, and Supreme and other courts go along.

Parenti points out "the threat of revolution in the United States has never been as real or harmful as the measures taken to 'protect' us from revolutionary ideas.... The real danger comes from those at the top who would insulate us from 'unacceptable' viewpoints. No idea is as dangerous as the force that seeks to repress it." When the nation's courts are part of that force, freedom is a nominally democratic state is on shaky ground.

Parenti explains the High Court reflects "the climate of the times and....the political composition of the justices" although most often the Court leans to the right supporting the corporate state and conservative issues. It reflects its ideology in its decisions and by the cases it chooses to hear or not hear.

The Warren Court was an exception ruling for the first time ever "repeatedly on behalf of the less affluent" on civil liberties, reapportionment of legislative districts, and extending the "economic rights of the poor." The Court ended state prohibitions against interracial marriage and rendered its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 ruling "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" that was a first step toward ending racially separated schools it took until the 1960s to move forward on.

Parenti continued saying post-Warren Courts reverted to form leaning "mostly in a rightward direction" on a variety of crucial issues he lists and discusses like:

-- abortion and gender discrimination making positive and negative rulings;

-- affirmation action and civil rights making it harder to prove discrimination;

-- criminal justice weakening Miranda rights, giving child abusers more rights than their victims, weakening unreasonable searches and seizures and much more;

-- the death penalty with the High Court reinstating it in 1976 but "pruning" it down thereafter;

-- economic inequality by upholding laws reducing welfare aid and other rulings against the disadvantaged;

-- the electoral system that was highlighted in Bush v. Gore ruling against the candidate who won and awarding it (as it turned out) to the loser;

-- executive power, granting more of it to the president;

-- labor and the corporate economy ruling often for business and against working Americans;

-- the separation of church and state with the Court disregarding the First Amendment to rule for religious organizations' exemptions to taxation and much more in violation of the Constitution at a time Christian hard right extremists wield enormous influence over state policy.

Parenti's book was published in March, 2007 before the current Court's June rulings came down, but he surely would have commented on them had he known in time. Overall, the Court affirmed how hard line it is confirming what progressives feared most about it. Call it a muscular move to the right on fundamental issues of free expression, abortion rights and more.

One decision was a 5 - 4 ruling with the Court allowing the political process to become even more corrupted by corporate money by allowing ads mentioning specific candidates to appear in the immediate days before an election. It means funding an electoral campaign just went up exponentially so lesser or poorly funded candidates have even less of a chance to win. In another decision, hypocritically, it curtailed the free expression rights of public school children because they said things the Court didn't like.

Even more troubling was the effective gutting of the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision affirming segregated public schools denied "Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment." The reactionary Roberts Court disagreed 5 - 4 saying instead public schools can't seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures taking explicit account of a student's race. The decision angered conservative Justice Breyer enough to emotionally denounce it in a 20 minute statement from the bench calling it a "radical" step and "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much." Justice Stevens bristled as well saying it was "a cruel irony (that the opinion) rewrites the history of one of this court's most important decisions (and) no member of (the 1975 Court he joined) would have agreed with (it)."

One other disturbing trend was the Court's placing limits on plaintiffs' ability to bring suits or appeal them. It bothered Yale Law School Professor Judith Resnik enough to label the just-ended term "the year they closed the courts."

Parenti would be bothered, too, although his book stresses Courts reflect the political climate of the times and notes justices not only read the Constitution but also newspapers. When, like today, the Court and president are "militantly conservative" and Congress is complicit, justices can be inordinately activist siding against the public interest. Since they have life tenure, their jobs are secure, and the dominant media hushes up their abuses. Parenti suggests a way to "trim judicial adventurism is to end life tenure for federal judges," including those on the High Court. However, a constitutional amendment is needed to do it, and that's extremely hard to get.

Democracy for the Few in America

In our "pluralistic democracy," most government policies favor the privileged and work against the great majority of ordinary people. The result is social inequities and injustices prevail, civil liberties are fast disappearing, the rich get richer, the middle class is eroding, poverty and human needs are growing, and our government and dominant media say we live in the best of all possible countries in the best of all possible worlds in the USA. The preceding chapters dispelled that notion in disturbing detail so there's no confusion how things really are, and rosy characterizations won't change anything for most of us.

With all its faults, its defenders say "democratic capitalism" (an oxymoron) evolved through gradual reform. Though true at times, most often an unempowered unmobilized public is no match for the power of corporate capital with government and the military allied with it. Parenti asks:

-- "How can we speak of the US politico-economic system (reflecting) the democratic will?"

-- What democratic mandate directed government to transfer wealth from the people to the rich;

-- to lavish huge subsidies on corporate giants;

-- to fight imperial wars for greater corporate profit-making opportunities;

-- to endanger our environment;

-- to serve the privileged alone at the expense of all others it shows contempt for;

-- to roll back democracy when there's too much of it so there's only enough for the privileged few. Unless and until that changes America the Beautiful will, in fact, be George Bush's ugly America for most of us.

As Parenti says in summing up, it's "no mystery what needs to be done to bring us to a more equitable and democratic society" citing specifics like:

-- aid needy farmers, not rich agribusiness;

-- promote conservation and ecological restoration;

-- promote efficient mass transit, not inefficient polluting autos, one-fourth of which now are gas-guzzling, hugely greenhouse gas-emitting, road hogging, behemoth, dangerous SUVs no one knew they needed until Madison Avenue geniuses convinced millions they couldn't live without them;

-- reintroduce a fair progressive tax system and eliminate benefits only the rich get;

-- restore trust-busting and break up the corporate giants; promote the notion that small and local are good and big and global bad;

-- abolish the banking cartel-owned Federal Reserve so the government can print and circulate its own money and not have to pay private predators interest on it;

-- end powerful monied interests controlling the electoral process; promote public financing supporting all candidates; abolish the Electoral College and our winner take all system; abolish electronic voting and reintroduce paper ballots counted by hand by civil servants running elections; grant the District of Columbia statehood and full representation in Congress.

-- establish a minimum livable wage and guaranteed income for the indigent;

-- promote full employment and the right to organize and bargain on equal terms with management;

-- institute abandoned or reduced social services starting with those most important and for those in greatest need but made available to everyone;

-- guarantee quality national health and dental care for all and care for the elderly and indigent;

-- establish free education for everyone to the highest levels;

-- pay for it by ending imperial wars and promoting peace, slashing bloated military and homeland security budgets, closing hundreds of unneeded foreign-based military installations and most at home, ending expensive weapons systems development, and cutting the size of the military to levels needed for homeland defense, not imperial adventurism.

-- end gender, racial, ethnic and religious discrimination and criminal justice inequities;

-- abolish the CIA, NSA and other secretive, hugely expensive, roguish spy agencies operating outside the law no democratic state should allow; abolish DHS that functions as a national Gestapo;

-- return the public airwaves to its rightful owner - the public and open then up fully to all views on all issues with no corporate or government censorship;

-- enable seniors, the poor and disabled to have a minimum living income adjusted for inflation with an equitable Social Security program for everyone paid for by a progressively fair tax system, not the regressive payroll tax one now in place letting the rich off the hook by burdening average and low-wage earners;

-- establish public ownership over the major means of production in a true social democracy. Market forces only work for the ones controlling them assuring they benefit by exploiting most others. That's not a radical idea. It's plain fact.

Parenti concludes saying "Our goal should be an egalitarian, communitarian, environmentally conscious, democratic socialism (or real social democracy), with a variety of participatory and productive forms, offering both security and democracy" for everyone, not just the few the way it is now. "There is nothing sacred about the existing system." Having failed the many, it should be replaced by an alternative one that works for everyone.

It can happen with a "fundamental change (to) widespread organizing not only around particular issues but for a movement" for sweeping democratic change. Perhaps the time will come, Parenti says, as it did in the past, "when those who (today) seem invincible will be shaken from their pinnacles" and revealed to have feet of clay when disrobed and exposed to the light of day. We'll all then see they represented "democracy for the few," not the rest of us, but their day is past and replaced by a new social order for everyone. That can happen if enough people believe it and mobilize effectively to get it. A later Parenti edition could then be called "The End of Democracy for the Few - How the Many Triumphed Over the Privileged."

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on The MicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Saving A President

Saving A President - by Stephen Lendman

In his first year in office, the widely-followed Cook Political Report had this assessment of George Bush's early months as president: "Looking back over his first five months in office, President George W. Bush and his administration started off to a strong, fast start but now, his future seems far less certain. Not only are Bush's overall job approval ratings slumping, but his disapproval ratings are climbing (and) after a strong start, the last three months have been less than auspicious for this new President. The good news....is that they have plenty of time before the next presidential (or) mid-term elections. The bad news is that they have a lot of repair work to do and had better get started." They wasted little time doing it, but no one (at least the pubic) knew in June what lay ahead in September.

George Bush entered office with an approval rating around 50%. It rose a little at first, then slumped moderately as the Cook Report suggested. Everything changed dramatically September 11. Bush's rating skyrocketed instantly hitting a temporary high around 90% and remained above 80% through year end. That momentous day transformed a mediocre president overnight with some observers incredibly comparing him to Lincoln, FDR and Churchill combined.

It was laughable then and ludicrous now for a pathetic caricature of a president and man so hated he's barely able to hang on to avoid what growing vocal numbers in the country demand - his head and removal from office by impeachment along with Vice-President Cheney.

Today again, George Bush finds himself in a precarious position at the least. He insists on maintaining a failed policy a growing majority in the country wants ended. As a result, his approval rating is scraping rock bottom in polls likely "engineered" to keep it from winning all-time bottom honors as the lowest ever for a sitting president. Dick Cheney is less fortunate, however, at a bottom-scraping 12% that's the lowest ever for a president or vice-president by far and then some.

With that in mind, here's how the Cook Political Report assesses things as of June 29, 2007: "....after six and a half years of George W. Bush's presidency, the Republican 'brand' has been badly tarnished. As a result, it would take an enormous amount of luck for Republicans to hold the White House or win back control of the Senate or House, let alone (do all three)....the GOP (will need) a long and painful rebuilding process (and) recapturing the White House or congressional majorities (is) unlikely in the near future." The report suggests a possible Republican apocalypse even though it notes Democrats have failed to end the Iraq war, have only delivered on one of their six major platform planks (increasing the federal minimum wage), and are scorned as well.

With 18 months to go, what's a president to do to hang on, run out the clock, and leave office through the normal front door process of his term expiring, not the result of the Senate voting him out earlier by "the (required) Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" - hard as that is to do as history shows.

Politicians know, and especially presidents, when in trouble - change the subject. It's being changed by ignoring reality, aided by healthy offerings of the usual kinds of industrial strength corporate media hyperventilating.

It features George Bush and his supportive generalissimo and other top brass in Iraq in the lead. They continue asking for more time, insist the disastrous "surge" is working, say it just needs a chance, and that withdrawing too soon would trigger a bloodbath on the order of the Cambodian killing fields according to an earlier preposterous April claim. Unmentioned is the continued bloodbath caused by the US presence that won't end until all American and other hostile foreign forces are withdrawn.

That won't happen according to recent reports with the National Review Online and other sources recently saying the administration intends to escalate its strength on the ground, not curtail it. More troops may be brought in, and the Air Force is increasing its hardware. The powerful B 1 bomber is back (capable of carrying 24 ton bombs) and making multiple daily and/or nightly strikes. A squadron of A-10 "Warthog" attack planes were sent as well along with additional F-16C Fighting Falcons. Bombing runs have intensified dramatically, and the level of violence, deaths and destruction overall is increasing. The Navy is contributing as well with the USS Enterprise sent to the Gulf that may or may not replace one of the two Fifth Fleet carriers already there.

In recent months, the Air Force also doubled its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) efforts using Predator drones (capable of striking targets as well as spying), high altitude U2s, and sophisticated AWACS planes. It all points to one thing on the ground and back home. Congress can debate all it wants. No Iraq withdrawal is planned, the conflict is being escalated, and the only issue on the table is selling the present course to the public with Congress already signed on showing debate is for show, not for real. The hard sell is beginning by the timeworn, yet tried and true, sure-fire method of scaring people to death to go along and in this case threatening them as well.

George Bush's Continuing War on the First Amendment

On July 17, George Bush issued another of his many presidential "one-man" decrees titled "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." More than any other chief executive in the nation's history, this President abuses this practice egregiously as another example of his contempt for the law.

Economist and journalist Ferdinand Lundberg (1905 - 1995) wrote in his extremely important and revealing book "Cracks in the Constitution:" The US Constitution "nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a President (the) power (to make) new law" by issuing "one-man, often far-reaching" executive order decrees. However, Lundberg explains "the President in the American constitutional system is very much a de facto king....(he is) by far the most powerful formally constituted political officer on earth." He has "vast power (and) stands in a position midway between a collective executive (like the British system) and an absolute dictator." Lundberg wrote those words over 27 years ago when George Bush was busy making millions (the result of friendly bailouts) from successive oil business ventures that flopped.

George Bush's family connections delivered for him in business, in spite of his ineptitude, and finally gave him the grand prize of the presidency he exploited fully ever since. For him and those around him, the law is just an artifact to be used, abused or ignored at his pleasure. He earlier usurped "Unitary Executive" power to claim the law is what he says it is and in six and half years in office issued more signing statements (over 800) than all past presidents combined. The result is he expanded presidential power (already immense as Lundberg explained) at the expense of the other two branches by shifting it dangerously toward unlimited executive authority, otherwise known as tyranny.

The Constitution has no provisions for "Unitary Executive" power or the right of the chief executive to issue signing statements that hasn't deterred this President from doing as he pleases. There's also no authorization for issuing Executive Orders, as just noted, beyond the following vague language Lundberg explained constitutes the "essence of presidential power....in a single sentence."

Specifically, Article II, section 1 reads: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That simple statement, easily passed over and misunderstood, means the near-limitless power of this office "is concentrated in the hands of one man." Article II, section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" without saying Presidents are virtually empowered to make laws as well as execute them even though nothing in the Constitution specifically permits this practice.

George Bush takes full advantage within and outside the law. His July 17 Executive Order is another case in point, but a particularly egregious and dangerous one. It starts off: The President's power stems from "the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America" as well as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act he invokes as well. The order then continues:

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

In a message to Congress on the same date, George Bush then stated:

-- "....I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

In effect, George Bush, on his say alone and in violation of the Constitution, criminalized dissent July 17, 2007. By so doing, he shifted the nation one step closer to full-blown tyranny with other tightening measures sure to follow this one. The dominant media reported virtually nothing about this nor will they explain or voice concern when law-abiding Americans are arrested and punished for protesting a criminal administration's illegal foreign wars. Instead, a full-court press publicly-aired effort is underway to justify them that provides clues for what may lie ahead.

Scare-Mongering Heats Up

On July 7, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum appeared on the Hugh Hewitt radio program. He was introduced by the host as "one of our favorite Americans," leaving no doubt where Hewitt stands. Santorum came to skewer his former colleagues' lack of resolve to stay the course in Iraq, no matter how hopeless things are on the ground. But he took the opportunity to go further by suggesting that "confronting Iran (is) an absolute lynchpin for our success in that region," that 9/11 taught us "Islamists" must be confronted, that they want to "conquer that region of the world (and) will soon end up on our doorstep (if not stopped, and that) between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen (to shape) "a very different" (public view) of this war....because....of some very unfortunate events (coming) like we're seeing unfold in the UK."

Does Rick Santorum know something the public doesn't, and was he given permission to leak it on-air? Another clue came July 10 from DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. He practically told a Chicago Tribune editorial board meeting another major terrorist attack is coming later this summer because he has a "gut feeling" about a period ahead of increased risk. Basing his assessment on undisclosed intelligence (as always) and earlier "terrorist patterns in Europe," he added "Summertime seems to be appealing to them (and) We worry that they are rebuilding their activities. I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk."

Chertoff then appeared on a number of TV programs to itemize his "gut feeling" factors, including taking full advantage of the likely staged June 29 London car bomb discoveries and June 30 follow-up Glasgow airport incident that may have only been an unfortunate accident. With no credible evidence backing his claims, Chertoff, nonetheless, said "Europe could become a platform for an attack against this country." The UK incidents may, in fact, have been staged to stoke fear in Britain and here in advance of a major homeland terror event to come.

The New York Times' Maureen Dowd tried making light of Chertoff's comments saying he sounds "more like a meteorologist than the man charged with keeping us safe." Chertoff's job isn't to "keep us safe," Dowd should know better, and her attempt at humor isn't funny. These comments are to be taken seriously. They were made to signal a changed political climate ahead brought on by a one or more likely upcoming terror events, possibly major ones. It would be to resuscitate a failing president the way 9/11 did earlier, even though no one this time would dare suggest George Bush combines Lincoln, FDR and Churchill resurrected or anything resembling it.

More Scare-Mongering

Quick to play their lead hyperventilating role, the corporate media is all over the notion of a summer terror surprise to prepare the public in advance for what may be coming and to accept the consequences of a police state America in response. ABC News may have been first to hype the story citing a new FBI analysis of Al-Queda messages warning of "their strategic intent to strike the US homeland and US interests worldwide (that) should not be discounted as merely deceptive noise."

Then on July 15, "Enemy Number One" bin Laden coincidentally appeared in an undated online videotape. It was titled "Winds of Martyrdom" and presented to look new with bin Laden saying "The happy (person) is the one chosen by Allah to be a martyr." In fact, it looked like old footage or pieced together segments of earlier ones repackaged to look fresh and released to the public two days after the Senate doubled the bounty on bin Laden to $50 million. It was also three days after AP reported July 12 that US intelligence analysts concluded Al-Queda has rebuilt its operating capability to levels unseen since right before 9/11 and is "renewing efforts to sneak terror plotters into (the) US" adding to numbers of them already here.

AP also mentioned a draft National Intelligence Estimate "expected (and now released to confirm) an increasingly worrisome portrait of al-Queda's ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks, even though (other) Bush administration officials say the US is safer (now) nearly six years into the war on terror." Hyping the threat further, AP mentioned key "classified" assessments in the report claiming Al-Queda "probably (is) still pursuing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed sufficient capability." Further, the US faces "a persistent and evolving (Islamic) terrorist threat" for the next three years.

In a clearly timed and motivated political statement, The (unclassified) National Intelligence Estimate "key judgments" were released July 17, combining assessments from 16 Bush administration spy agencies. It's titled "The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland," It presented the findings below, including reworked earlier ones, in addition to those mentioned above:

-- Al-Queda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability;"

-- Iraq strengthened Al-Queda that will "leverage the contacts and capabilities" to attack the US homeland;

-- Al-Queda and its operatives in Iraq will "energize the broader Sunni extremist community (and help to) recruit and indoctrinate (new) operatives;

-- In spite of Al-Queda's regrouping, US worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained Islamic extremists from attacking US soil; nonetheless, Al-Queda remains a serious future threat and is likely to focus on high-profile political, economic and infrastructure targets for maximum casualties, visually dramatic destruction, economic aftershocks and public fear;

-- Al-Queda restored its ability to attack US soil and operates freely in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA);

-- Other Muslim and non-Muslim terrorist groups also pose a danger abroad and may consider attacking here. Lebanon's Hezbollah topped the list of Muslim groups mentioned. Earth Liberation Front, called a violent environmental group, also made the list.

At his July 12 news conference, George Bush raised the specter of Al-Queda's threat to the US citing the above-mentioned intelligence report as supposed evidence. He then resurrected a timeworn long ago discredited golden oldie saying "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September 11. That's why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home." Unmentioned anywhere in the mainstream, of course, is the long-standing relationship between "Enemy Number One" bin Laden, Al-Queda and US and allied intelligence and how they're used in the fraudulent "war on terrorism" to manipulate and scare the public enough to go along with anything.

These comments, published assessments from The National Intelligence Estimate, inflammatory remarks from officials like Michael Chertoff, and accompanying dominant media hyperventilating effectively stoke public fear and may point to a major terror attack ahead on US soil. It will trigger a Code Red Alert if it happens signaling the highest terrorist threat level followed by the likely suspension of the Constitution, imposition of martial law, and end of the republic. The rule of law will be suspended, dissent no longer will be tolerated (it's already illegal), the military and other security forces will be involved on US soil in strength if needed, and an unmasked full-blown fascist police state will, in fact, henceforth exist.

It's arrival may be closer than most imagine in an effort to save the Bush presidency that continues to weaken and begs for a way out of its dilemma. It worked earlier on 9/11 and may soon be unveiled again, even more convincingly, for a president desperate enough to try anything as a Hail Mary scheme to finish out his term, leave office on his own accord, and refurbish what's left of his tarnished image.

This is what our military adventurism and single-minded pursuit of empire has gotten us. It's not to be taken lightly, for if it arrives it'll be too late. The time to unmask and stop it is now and quickly as Michael Chertoff's pointing to late summer is fast approaching.

A "Catastrophic Homeland Emergency" to Justify Attacking Iran

The Bush administration's pointing to Iran as a threat to US security is as baseless as the phony WMD and dangerous dictator claims were for war with Iraq. It's because Washington has wanted regime change in the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution toppled the US-reinstalled Shah Reza Pahlavi to power following the CIA-instigated coup in 1953 against democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh.

The Bush administration stepped up the current effort earlier citing Iran's legal commercial nuclear program as a thinly veiled pretext without ever mentioning that Washington encouraged Iranians to develop their commercial nuclear industry during the reign of the Shah. That can't be revealed because doing it would unmask the hypocrisy of the current belligerency and scare-mongering.

Through its usual practice of bribes and bullying, the administration got the Security Council to act in its behalf. It passed UN Resolution 1696 in July, 2006 demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment by August 31. When it refused, Resolution 1737 was passed in December imposing limited sanctions. Resolution 1747 then tightened them further in March, 2007. It imposed a ban on arms sales and expanded a freeze on the country's assets, in spite of Iranian officials' insistence (with no evidence to disprove them) their nuclear program is entirely peaceful and fully in accord with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Nonetheless, harsh rhetoric out of Washington continues with George Bush pushing for additional sanctions (against another Iranian bank and a large military-owned engineering firm) while hyping the concocted threat of Iran's commercial program that's no different from those of other NPT signatory states. Iran has been patient but earlier refused to allow IAEA inspectors to visit the Arak heavy water reactor until now. In a spirit of cooperation and facing a possible preemptive US and/or Israeli attack, it's scheduled to take place before the end of July. Iran also scaled back its enrichment program in a show of good faith and agreed to answer questions regarding past experiments at its facilities to defuse the threat of tougher sanctions and avoid a possible attack that's real and may be immiment.

As Iran shows a willingness to cooperate and prove it threatens no other country, the Bush administration renounced NPT and its crucial Article VI pledging nuclear nations make "good faith" efforts to eliminate their arsenals because having them heightens the risk they'll be used, endangering the planet. While Iran wants peace and nuclear non-proliferation, the Bush administration pursues a reckless agenda including the following:

-- It claims the right to develop new type nuclear weapons, not eliminate any now on hand.

-- It renounced NPT claiming the right to develop and test new weapons.

-- It abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).

-- It rescinded and subverted the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention.

-- It refused to consider a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to prevent nuclear bombs being added to present stockpiles already dangerously too high.

-- It spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined with large future increases planned, starting in FY 2008 up for debate and sure to pass.

-- It claims the right to wage preventive wars under the illegal and frightening doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" using first-strike nuclear weapons.

While Iran, in fact, threatens no one, America threatens the planet, and the world community stays silent in the face of a potential disaster if the US wages nuclear war because it can get away with it. What other nation will dare challenge the only remaining superpower in spite of the potential horrendous consequences from such a reckless act.

Scaring the Public to Death - Act II

Another earlier discredited campaign is now heating up again as well even though British foreign secretary, David Milliband, discounted its credibility in a July 8 Financial Times interview. It features US claims and hostile rhetoric that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force is providing weapons as well as funding, training and arming Shiite and other resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan with no credible evidence to prove it because there is none. It added "Quds Force (and) Hezbollah instructors trained approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time" at camps near Tehran. It's also using "Lebanese Hezbollah....as a proxy (or) surrogate in Iraq."

New York Times hawkish defense reporter Michael Gordon (picking up where the disgraced Judith Miller left off) concluded from this "that Iran has been engaged in a proxy war against American and Iraqi government forces for years." That kind of belligerent language on the New York Times front page adds fuel to the self-defense rationale for a future military assault against the Iranian state based on spurious accounts like Gordon's as justification.

It points toward and seems to confirm what the London Guardian reported a "well-placed" Washington source recently said - that George "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." It's Bush's lips moving but Dick Cheney's words coming out as he and those close to him (like Iran-Contra criminal, rabid Israel supporter, and deputy national security advisor Elliott Abrams) have long favored direct military action against Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons.

According to Guardian sources, "The balance (in Washington) has tilted" with George Bush on board with his vice-president, who, as insiders know, calls all the important shots in the nation's capitol. The Guardian quoted International Institute for Strategic Studies director of studies Patrick Cronin saying "Cheney has limited capital left (a likely dubious claim)," and if he uses it for one aim (like attacking Iran) "he could still have an impact." The US has a formidable strike force in the Gulf alone to do it with two carrier groups, 50 or more warships with nuclear weapons, hundreds of planes and contingents of Marines and Navy personnel.

Battle plans have long been in place (and are likely updated as needed) under code or operational name TIRANNT for Theater Iran Near Term. If an attack comes, it will be from the Gulf Naval task force and may also include long-range bombers and other warplanes and missiles based in Iraq and strategic locations like Diego Garcia within easy striking distance of targeted sites. The possibility of it happening is frightening as under a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" and CONPLAN (contingency/concept plan) 8022, Washington claims the right to preemptively strike targets anywhere in the world using so-called low-yield, extremely powerful, nuclear bunker buster weapons with Iran the apparent first target of choice.

The only good news from the Guardian (if correct) is that "No decision on military action is expected until next year" with the state department continuing for now to pursue a diplomatic route - that may just be a diversionary smoke screen for what's planned ahead.

Reuters reported July 17 that US Ambassador in Kabul William Wood said "There are clearly some munitions coming out of Iran going into the hands of the Taliban. We believe that the quantity and quality of those munitions are such that the Iranian government must know about it." Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a similar claim a month earlier along with other Washington reports of Iran aiding Shia, other "militant" fighters and "Al-Queda" elements in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Tehran rejects these accusations as "baseless and illogical" saying the obvious in reply - that the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and Washington's one-sided support for Israel causes instability in both regions. The US wants a pretext to strike the Islamic Republic, but the Iranian government isn't about to provide one. In fact, it's doing the opposite by cooperating with the IAEA and continues saying it's willing to engage in constructive diplomacy with the Bush administration.

On July 16, Iran indicated another round of security-related talks over Iraq with Washington is possible in the "near future" showing again it means what it says. The problem is the Bush administration does not. It continues using hard line tactics preferring belligerence and duplicity with Iran that's typical of the way it does business overall. It's willing to negotiate on its own terms only while posing the threat of a military option or economic sanctions against nations unwilling to go along. At the same time, Iran knows CIA and special forces operatives have been engaged in covert activities in the country for many months to destabilize the ruling government.

In addition, Washington has attempted to build an anti-Iranian Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian coalition in the region to further undermine Tehran's influence. The state department has also pressured international banks and other corporations to sever relations with Iran to make the country "scream" the way the Nixon administration did it to Salvador Allende's Chile and the Bush administration and Israel are now doing it to the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza. Iran, of course, like Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, is richly endowed with the world's most in-demand commodity and can keep a good revenue stream coming no matter what.

The Israel Factor

When it comes to Iran, Israel is always part of the equation. On July 11, the Senate again showed it's Israeli-occupied territory (along with the House) by passing 97 - 0 the Lieberman-sponsored S.Amendment 2073 to S.Amdt 2011 to HR 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008). It calls for censuring Iran for its complicity in killing US soldiers in Iraq. It was a clear warning to Tehran claiming unstated evidence its government is using proxy forces to attack US troops on the ground. It follows months of accusations from American commanders that Iran is supplying various kinds of weapons to Iraqi resistance groups with no clear evidence to prove it.

Israel is in the mix, too, and has warned repeatedly of an attack on Iran as well with prime minister Ehud Olmert earlier in the year saying his country couldn't risk another "existential threat" with a clear reference to the Nazi holocaust. By it, he and other high-level Israeli political and military officials point to Iran's commercial nuclear program, falsely claiming Tehran is fanatically and ideologically committed to destroying the Jewish state. It's nonsense, but it works by stoking fears to get the Israeli public and world opinion on its side for whatever military action is planned in "self-defense." Other Israeli national security officials have a contrary view, but their assessment gets no press attention. They believe the Iranian government is rational and not about to wage war with Israel, the US, or any other nation.

Israel and the US know it, but neither state says so publicly. If Iran attacked Israel, it would be committing suicide. It would guarantee a full-scale US and Israeli response, possibly with nuclear weapons, that would devastate the country. In addition, no one mentions that after the ancient Persian empire became Iran in 1935, the country obeyed international laws, never occupied another country, and never attacked or threatened to attack another nation beyond occasional border skirmishes far short of war. It's only full-scale conflict was defensive in response to Saddam Hussein's US-backed, equipped and financially aided September, 1980 invasion. The evidence today is overwhelming. Iran threatens no other nation and will only defend itself if attacked.

It may have to and formally complained to the Security Council criticizing Ehud Olmert and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz's threatening comments. Mofaz made his remarks on a June Washington visit and Olmert gave his in April to the German publication Focus, which he later denied when quoted verbatim. Each official spoke of a possible Israeli attack against Iran's commercial nuclear facilities with the Israeli prime minister saying Iran's nuclear program could be struck by 1000 cruise missiles launched over 10 days. He added "It is impossible perhaps to destroy the entire nuclear program but it would be possible to damage it in such a way that it would be set back for years." One thousand cruise missiles, some with nuclear warheads, would set the whole country back for years, or most any other one.

On July 11, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman lived up to his notorious reputation as a reckless super-hawk with extremist fascist ideas. He told Israeli Army Radio he got US and European backing for an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities following a meeting with NATO and European Union officials. He said the message he got was that America and Europe are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Israel should proceed on its own to "prevent the (Iranian) threat herself."

Israel may have two fronts in mind according IDF Major General Eyal Ben-Reuven, deputy commander of Israeli forces in last summer's disastrous war in Lebanon. He spoke at an Institute for National Security Studies conference July 16 assessing the summer, 2006 Lebanon war saying the IDF is "preparing itself for an all-out war (with Syria), and this is a major change in the military's working premise" following last year's humiliating defeat at the hands of Hezbollah. General Ben-Reuven said when war breaks out, Syria will suffer mass military and civilian casualties as the IDF is training for a swift and overwhelming invasion "to knock out the areas where (Syrian) missiles are launched....as quickly as possible." He added "By preparing for an all-out war, we can also deal with Palestinian terror" signaling a possible attack on Hamas in Gaza that may happen at the same time combined with one on Hezbollah as well.

Haaretz reported July 18 that the UN may be complicit in aiding Israel's scheme to show Syria's a threat to regional security as justification for a planned attack. Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari complained in a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that Israel is fabricating evidence that his country is supposedly smuggling weapons to Lebanon. He specifically singled out the Secretary-General's envoy to Lebanon and Syria, Terje Roed-Larsen, who's long served Western and Israeli interests. His earlier report backed Israel's unsubstantiated claims that weapons are entering Lebanon through Syria, implying the Syrian government is sending them. Ja'afari also complained about Israel's border violations, illegal overflight spying missions in Lebanese airspace, and its photographing commercial truck deliveries claiming they're smuggling weapons.

This information suggests Israel and the US are targeting all their regional enemies at once with possible plans extending from Iraq to Iran into Syria and also Hezbollah in South Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. A scheme may be planned much like the way a local mafia don eliminates his enemies to consolidate power. In this case, it's a global godfather and its regional junior (but powerful and influential) partner doing what a local don would say is taking care of family business. The net result may be to set the whole Middle East aflame, destroy what little influence Washington has left there, jeopardize homeland security, and heighten the risk for retaliation against US and Western interests everywhere.

It can only worsen further if Pakistan is targeted as well. It may happen, with or without President Pervez Musharraf's permission, because of claimed Al-Queda safehaven tribal areas in the country posing a regional and wider threat. The Wall Street Journal reported "US policy makers (are) under pressure to eradicate this haven (even though doing it) could spark a local backlash strong enough to topple (the leader) President Bush has called Washington's strongest ally in the fight against al Queda." The New York Times sounded the same theme saying "....American officials have been meeting in recent weeks to discuss what some said was....an aggressive new strategy (including) public and covert elements (and) some new (secret) measures to avoid embarrassing General Musharraf."

Looking Ahead

With 18 months left in office and his presidency foundering, George Bush is like a cornered animal desperate enough to try anything to survive. Surrounded by a dwindling, but still potent, number of hard liners, this article suggests a disturbing scenario ahead that bodes ill for the nation and world if it happens. It appears the Bush administration's scheme involves changing the subject by scare-mongering that may be followed by staging one or more major home-based terror attacks on the order of 9/11, then waging war with Iran on the phony pretext Tehran threatens US and regional security. Further strikes may also be planned against the tribal areas of Pakistan along with backing Israel's intentions against Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. These will be ominous developments if they happen as explained above. In an effort to survive and finish out their term in office, George Bush and Dick Cheney may be willing to gamble everything for what, in the end, can't be achieved.

An earlier CIA assessment points out part of the problem. It was blunt and frightening saying if the US attacks Iran, Southern Shia Iraq will light up like a candle and explode uncontrollably throughout the country. It will also likely incite Saudi Shiites who happen to be in the most oil-rich part of the Kingdom, but it very possibly could include the entire Muslim world in armed rebellion against anything American and Western. It's heading toward that kind of showdown now.

The US is already a pariah state, losing influence as its recklessness intensifies. Take away its military strength, and it faces an unfriendly world, likely to be less receptive to its demands if it can't back them up with the muscle it has now or shies away from using what it has. That's a future possibility, though, not a present one. More immediate is the threat of nuclear war, the end of the republic, and what little is left of constitutional law. That's along with a nation spending itself into bankruptcy and already, by some measures and analysis, at an impossible to repay $80 trillion or more in unfunded future entitlements and other liabilities. That's the assessment of economist Laurence Kotlikoff in his 2006 appraisal for the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank in an article titled "Is the United States Bankrupt?"

It won't happen as long as Fed Chairman Bernanke keeps printing money at the same reckless double digit pace Alan Greenspan did before him. They and other Fed chairmen are beholden to the same banking cartel and Wall Street establishment that owns and runs the Federal Reserve for their benefit, not ours. Their scheme is Ponzi-like to monetize continued prosperity as long as the string holds out that can't forever as former Nixon chief economic advisor Herb Stein once explained earlier. But the longer it does, the worse the outcome when the inevitable end comes with the public set up for the hardest fall like always.

The present domestic economic turbulence and threatening credit crunch (with global implications) is the result of the following that's bad enough but no disaster yet:

-- slumping housing,

-- fallout from recklessly leveraged speculation in hedge funds and on Wall Street overall with the Federal Reserve fueling it all,

-- troubled collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) linked to sinking sub-prime mortgage valuations,

-- once AAA-rated residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), now downgraded,

-- sinking sub-prime loans,

-- the multi-trillion dollar financial derivatives market speculation Warren Buffet calls "time bombs" and "financial WMDs",

-- junk bonds getting "junkier,"

-- dollar weakness,

-- inflation much higher than reported and rising because of years of over-spending, over-borrowing and under-taxing,

-- and other potential near and intermediate-term financial trouble sure to surprise if it comes.

So far, it's cyclical noise compared to a greater secular meltdown ahead from built-up financial excesses, peak oil, global warming, intensifying ecological disasters, permanent wars on the world, and the full-blown emergence of homeland tyranny.

This writer takes issue with others who think America is currently in an economic meltdown. Where there's strong agreement, however, is that one lies ahead, no one knows when precisely, it'll likely surprise when it arrives, and it may strike like Armageddon when it hits making The Great Depression look tame by comparison and last even longer.

For now, though, removing the criminal class from Washington, restoring the rule of law, saving the republic, avoiding further wars, and ending the current ones is job one. Failure to do it may mean whatever's ahead won't matter. It'll be too late long before it arrives. Those who care about these things and see the threat better enlist others, do more than complain about it, and act in time collectively to stop it. It can only come from the bottom up, never the other way.

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

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

Thursday, July 19, 2007

The Militarization and Annexation of North America

The Militarization and Annexation of North America - by Stephen Lendman

Besides the Bush administration's imperial aims and permanent war on the world, add the one at home below the radar. Its weapons include the WTO, NAFTA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI, CIA, NSA, NORTHCOM, militarized state and local police, National Guard forces, paramilitary mercenaries like Blackwater USA, and all other repressive instruments of state power and control. They target the people of three nations slowly becoming one headquartered in Washington. That's the apparent aim of those in power here wanting one continent, "indivisible" minus old-fashioned ideas like "liberty and justice for all" we used to believe in when, as kids, we recited our "Pledge of Allegiance." They now have a whole new meaning. They're just words drummed into young minds hoping they'll still believe them when they're old enough to know better.

There may be a greater scheme for the planet ahead, but this article only focuses on what we know about and how it's unfolding so far. It has a name, in fact, several, but they all aim for the same thing - one nation, indivisible, where three sovereign ones once stood, headquartered in Washington.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) or "Deep Integration" North American Union

SPP was formerly launched at a March 23, 2005 meeting in Waco, Texas attended by George Bush, Mexico's President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. It's a tri-national agreement hatched below the radar in Washington containing the recommendations of the Independent Task Force of North America. That's a group organized by the powerful US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), and Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It advocates greater US, Canadian and Mexican economic, political, social, and security integration with secretive working groups formed to devise non-debatable agreements that, when completed, will be binding beyond the power of legislatures to change. It's also taking shape without public knowledge or consideration.

From what's already known, SPP unmasked isn't pretty. It's a corporate-led coup d'etat against the sovereignty of three nations enforced by a common hard line security strategy already in play separately in each country. It's a scheme to create a borderless North American Union under US control without barriers to trade and capital flows for corporate giants, mainly US ones. It's also to insure America gets free and unlimited access to Canadian and Mexican resources, mainly oil, and in the case of Canada water as well. It's to assure US energy security as a top priority while denying Canada and Mexico preferential access to their own resources henceforth earmarked for US markets.

It's also to create a fortress-North American security zone encompassing the whole continent under US control in the name of "national (and continental) security" with US borders effectively extended to the far reaches of the continent. The scheme, in short, is NAFTA on steroids combined with Pox Americana homeland security enforcement. It's the worst of all possible worlds headed for an unmasked police state, and it's the Bush administration's notion of "deep integration" or the "Big Idea" meaning we're boss, what we say goes, no outliers will be tolerated, public interest is off the table, and the people of three nations be damned.

It's also the next step in what GHW Bush had in mind when he delivered his "Toward a New World Order" speech to a joint session of Congress on another September 11 in 1990. At the onset of the "crisis in the Persian Gulf," he said "We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment (offering) a rare opportunity to move toward....a new world order" free from "the threat of terror....and more secure...." He spoke of a "new world....struggling to be born....quite different from the one we've known." He masked his intentions in language of peace and the pursuit of justice while preparing for war on Iraq and the region that's gone on for over 16 years with no end in sight. A new Bush administration is bringing that "New World Order" to the North American continent. Unless it can be stopped, the streets of Boston, Baltimore and Buffalo may one day look like occupied Baghdad or Bogota when drug barons clash and Colombia's US-financed military and paramilitaries step in.

SPP Unmasked

Establishing hard line security initiatives is key to making SPP's "deep integration" trade agenda work. It's being planned at a time of Washington's cooked up "war on terrorism" scheme unleashing imperial dreams not possible without the public traumatized enough to go along. Intended is a ramped up militarized police state of enhanced border and homeland security. It's based on the phony notion that doing business and protecting the national interest and public welfare require tough measures in place to secure them at a time of threatening global terrorism.

As outlandish as it sounds, the scheme is moving ahead toward implementation. It threatens Canadian, Mexican and US national sovereignty and priorities, and their people and ours are none the wiser about it. NAFTA is a glimpse of what's ahead. It's record in 12.5 years has been disastrous with huge numbers of job losses and growing insecurity in three countries. SPP guarantees more of the same on steroids with small businesses hurt as well. They continue being trampled by corporate giants they're no match for. Many go under or are bought out if they survive. They and working people aren't part of the SPP process, and their concerns aren't being addressed and are guaranteed to worsen as this initiative advances.

Its doing it at secret meetings like the one from September 12 - 14, 2006 in Banff, Alberta, Canada. It was co-chaired by three former high officials of the participating nations including a leading US cold warrior as Reagan Secretary of State, George Shultz. He has all the credentials SPP needs as a former Bechtel president and current board member also holding memberships at the hard right Hoover Institution and American Enterprise Institute, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and the Committee on the Present Danger military lobbying group.

They were part of a high-powered group of present and former government officials; top military-industrial complex representatives, Big Oil and other corporate executives; leading policy analysts; high-ranking military brass; and a single Wall Street Journal self-styled Latin American expert editorialist known never to let facts conflict with the state and corporate interests she represents. She's a frequent target of this writer, and by now likely knows it - Mary Anastasia O'Grady.

Except for O'Grady, no journalists attended, and no press releases followed the meeting with its carefully scripted agenda and controlled media blackout. Yet veteran Canadian publisher, author, activist and former political candidate Mel Hurtig managed to get hold of the attendee list and published it online. He also posted topics discussed including: "A Vision for North America" (but not a people-friendly one), "A North American Energy Strategy" (for US energy security at the expense of Canada and Mexico), "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration," and "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" (aka Pox Americana).

Washington dominates the planning at all meetings with its interests getting primary attention. Along with what's mentioned above, efforts are to create uniform business practices and standards, ease the flow of US products into Canada and Mexico, remove labor constraints, and eliminate unwelcome environmental standards or restrictions interfering with the primary consideration of profits.

Also on the agenda is getting Canada and Mexico to allow more privatization of state-run enterprises like Mexico's nationalized oil company, PEMEX, and eventually open up Canada's medicare health care system to private investment. The US can't negotiate this way with its western European, Chinese or Japanese trading partners but can easily pressure most developing nations to go along with policies harming their own people, and neighboring accommodating ones like Canada, so long as their elite leading players share the benefits.

In February, 2007, a set of SPP private sector priorities were laid out by the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) that serves as an official tri-national SPP working group. It was created at the March, 2006 second annual SPP summit in Cancun, Mexico. The group is composed of representatives of 30 giant North American companies, with powerful US ones like GE, Ford, GM, Wal-Mart, Lockheed Martin, Merck and Chevron running things the way Orwell described in "Animal Farm" where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

NACC's recommendations centered on "private sector involvement" being "a key step to enhancing North America's competitive position in global markets and is the driving force behind innovation and growth." It mentioned "border-crossing facilitation, standards and regulatory cooperation, and energy integration (with a top priority of) improving the secure flow of goods and people within North America." These issues and others were discussed above explaining what they're really all about, not the usual code language hiding their real purpose.

Without using the word, NACC stressed the importance establishing policies for maximum profits. Its report said "Every measure that adds to the cost or time to cross borders within North America is in effect a tax on enterprise, a tax on investment (fair taxes in both cases), or a tax on jobs (a slap at high wages) across the region, which ultimately results in incremental costs for the consumers in all three countries (untrue as cost savings accrue to bottom lines, not consumer pockets)." Also mentioned was the need to make the North American economy "work better (and strengthen) the security and well-being of citizens" without mentioning the "citizens" NACC has in mind are dominant corporate ones and the privileged only and doing it means hard line restraint on the public.

SPP wants "to cut red tape and give consumers better access to safe, less expensive, and innovative products" that only "red tape" can help assure. Regulations, it says "impede the efficiency and competitiveness of businesses in all three countries" except ones giving them a competitive advantage and even though regulations, in fact, serve (or should serve) to protect consumers, not harm them.

Recommendations in the report call for specific action in these sectors in the order the report listed them. It placed last the one of greatest importance, energy, but here's the order priority given: food and agriculture, financial services, transportation, protection of intellectual property rights and lastly energy integration specifically emphasizing Canada's vast oil sands that make its overall reserves second only to Saudi Arabia.

Canada aims to triple its oil sands production by 2015 to three million barrels daily to feed America's insatiable energy appetite these resources are earmarked for. Mexico's oil is also targeted, but the report hides NACC's aim for state oil company PEMEX to be opened to private investment saying only while the country is "blessed with abundant reserves, (it) faces major challenges in attracting capital" needed to realize their potential. NACC wants Mexico to "increase the competitiveness in (its) energy sector" without saying it wants it privatized so foreign investors can plunder them for profit.

It also wants governments and the private sector to "work together effectively in strengthening the competitive position of enterprises" in all three countries saying, in effect, end all restrictions on how we do business even if it harms your nations, people and environment. It made 50 total recommendations it wants mostly accomplished before the end of 2008 with some longer range ones targeting 2010. They cover the range of issues discussed above and specific ones listed below:

-- developing "national critical infrastructure protection strategies" with rules providing for legal protection;

-- enhancing emergency management and disaster planning;

-- implementing planned land clearance projects, meaning less for the people and more for corporate predators;

-- putting in place more business-friendly border security practices, meaning militarizing the border;

-- further simplifying NAFTA rules-of-origin requirements, meaning no restrictions on regional trade even for unsafe products;

-- simplifying the NAFTA certification process and requirements aiming at their total elimination;

-- ending the consumer-protective US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS);

-- removing regulatory standards and practices that impede trade even if doing it harms consumers;

-- working toward a goal of uniform global regulatory standards and practices regardless of the consequences or concern about national sovereignty;

-- easing cross-border tax burdens forcing consumers to pick up the difference;

-- cooperating in identifying common financial regulatory concerns, then work to eliminate them;

-- agreeing to unrestricted air cargo transport services between the US and Mexico;

-- completing a coordinated Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Strategy aimed at protecting them and keeping their prices high;

-- developing an initiative against counterfeiting and piracy; and

-- collaborating on expanding the supply of highly skilled people in the energy sector throughout North America and building a model to be applied to other knowledge-intensive sectors such as financial services.

NACC denies what's pretty clear about about its aims. Saying its recommendations aren't meant to "threaten the sovereign power of any of the three countries," there's no doubt that's the central objective. It wants a North American Union headquartered in Washington with policies in place benefitting corporate giants at the expense of working people. They'll be hammered by greater job losses, fewer social services, and a loss of personal security under militarized police state conditions in the name of "national (continental) security" in the age of concocted global terror threats.

North American Future 2025 Project

This is another secretive effort with the same objective run by the US-based conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). It held closed-door meeting roundtables of Canadian business leaders in Calgary as part of a project by this name. CSIS former American political heavyweights are involved including Sam Nunn, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William Cohen, Henry Kissinger and others. The agenda involves preparing a final report to the US, Canadian and Mexican governments by September 30 expected to recommend the benefits of integrating the three nations into a single political, economic and security bloc.

What's known has activist groups upset including the Council of Canadians and Coalition for Water Aid. They're protesting what they say amounts to a sub rosa effort for corporate interests to control Canada's huge fresh water supply, estimated at one-fifth of the world's total. They want Canadian energy and other resources, too.

LIke NACC, CSIS carefully states its aims in what it's made public so far, showing the goals of both efforts are the same. CSIS's North America Future 2025 Project is its research effort to help policymakers "make sound, strategic, long-range policy decisions about North America, with emphasis on regional integration." It cites "six areas of critical importance to the trilateral relationship: labor mobility, energy, the environment, security, competitiveness and border infrastructure and logistics." This is all familiar terminology to be discussed in "seven closed-door roundtable sessions (with) 21 (to) 45 individuals - with an equal number from each nation."

They kicked off in Roundtable I discussing "Methodology of Global and North American Projections" followed by each of the above listed six "critical" areas. Protesters are planning to be at the third trilateral SPP summit Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper will host August 20 and 21 in Montebello, Quebec. They'll target SPP overall as well as the Harper government's efforts to advance the corporate-friendly "Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement" (TILMA) as one more nail in the coffin of Canadian national sovereignty.

The agreement between Alberta and British Columbia took effect April 1, 2007 and mandates harmonizing regulations and standards between the two provinces, removing barriers to economic development. Saskatchewan is now being targeted to sign on as efforts advance overall for a borderless North America with schemes like TILMA being used as stepping stones along the way to achieve it. TILMA for all Canada will allow Canadian companies the right to challenge any provincial laws conflicting the NAFTA provisions.

SPP North American integration will go much further, of course, and Joseph Watson reported "Globalists to Formally Propose Merger of US, Canada (and) Mexico" in his July 5 Prison Planet web site article. In it, he says CSIS "political heavyweights" will formally propose a North American union to Congress at summer's end after the conclusion of their seven secret roundtable meetings to devise it. It will contain provisions explained above that spell doom for the sovereignty of the three participating nations. Their leaders want them to become one in service to corporate giants' strategy for greater profits at the public's expense. A further aim is to harmonize regulatory standards with the European Union (EU) in a new transatlantic economic partnership that moves things closer to corporate America's dream of a militarized borderless world run by them.

The North American SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO)

This is another organization set up to facilitate the designs of NACC and the North American Future 2025 Project for continental integration. It's a trilateral provincial, state and local government coalition aligned with the goals of corporate giants in three countries. As its name suggests, it aims to develop an international, integrated, secure superhighway running the length of the continent. If built, it would extend from Winnipeg, Manitoba; Edmonton, Alberta; and Windsor, Ontario, Canada through Kansas City, San Antonio and Laredo, Texas into Neuvo Laredo, Guadalajara, and the ports of Manzanillo, Colima and Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico.

It's planned to be a comprehensive energy and commerce-related jugular vein-sized artery for transportation, trade and strategic resources like energy. According to NASCO documents, DHS will be in charge of monitoring the entire system through high-tech sensors and trackers as a further step to securing the continent for business at taxpayers expense. This is part of the massive infrastructure planned for North American integration. If completed, it'll be a boon to business at the expense of the environment and working people throughout the continent, always the ones to lose from grandiose schemes like this one.

Plan Puebla-Panama (PPP)

Mexican President Felipe Calderon wishes to revive former President Vincente Fox's PPP that flopped but didn't die. It's a multi-billion dollar development scheme to turn Southern Mexico and Central America, all the way to Panama, into a colossal free trade paradise displacing indigenous people, destroying their culture and sacred corn, and harming the environment for profit. Fox earlier and Calderon now want to induce private investment by shamelessly handing over to them the region's natural resources, including its oil, water, minerals, timber and ecological biodiversity.

The idea is to rip into the area with new ports, airports, bullet trains, bridges, superhighways, 25 hydroelectric dams, new telecommunication facilities, electrical grids, and a new Panama Canal - for starters, with more development to follow. Also envisioned is opening the country's wildlife reserves for bioprospecting with a huge giveaway to giant seed, chemical and drug companies and connect everything with new highways linking Mexico to Central America and no doubt would connect to the proposed NASCO superhighway. The idea is to develop and facilitate business throughout the region - meaning indigenous people have to leave to make way for it, like it or not, which they don't and will fight it.

The area planned for development is enormous and so far stalled. It covers 102 million hectares with 64 million inhabitants in eight countries, few of whom will benefit from a naked scheme to exploit. It masquerades as infrastructure, private development and more without consent of the people the way it's always done. It's the reason the plan went nowhere so far. It's irrelevant to the poor, rural South who'll lose everything so corporate predators can take their land and livelihoods for private gain. They then want to sell back to the people what's already theirs like Chiapas' fresh water. It's 40% of Mexico's total and the reason Coca-Cola is dying to get hold of it. It would also destroy the last significant tropical rain forest in Chiapas' Montes Azules Integral Biosphere in the Lacandon jungle where the government wants to remove native Mayans from lands belonging to them.

Enter Felipe Calderon. On April 9, he held a one-day conference in Campeche, Mexico attended by the presidents of all Central American countries except Belize and Nicaragua, who sent their prime minister and vice-president respectively. Washington no doubt is pushing this scheme as it would be a development bonanza for US corporations if implemented and a huge opportunity for many others if ever completed.

Militarizing A Continent As A First Step

No nation is more militarized today than America. It spends more on national defense and homeland security than all other nations combined. Add to those budgets all others related to defense, still others for intelligence and covert actions, plus the net interest cost attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays and it totals over $1 trillion for FY 2007 according to one analyst's estimate and heading way above that in FY 2008 if current budget proposals pass and become law which is almost certain.

Canada and Mexico are expected to share the load as part of Washington's "war on terrorism" and are doing it. Supporting Washington is central for Canada's Stephen Harper conservative administration. It includes adhering to the 2002 Binational Planning Agreement allowing US military forces to enter Canada on its own discretion, set up shop, and exercise authority over Canadians in their own country. Harper's more hard line than his predecessors. He believes Canadian political and business interests depend on it, and he's committed to serving them no matter how ordinary Canadians feel about it. He's submissive to Washington and has been massively ramping up military spending with plans to increase it over 50% above 2005 levels to $21.5 billion annually by 2010.

That's chump change by US standards but a major commitment for a nation traditionally spending at far lower levels. Canada faces no outside threat so spending hugely on its military, unlike in the past, defies tradition and public consensus favoring social spending that's being cut to pay for it. It's also contrary to Canada's traditionally eschewing militarism and foreign wars unlike its southern neighbor's thriving on them since the nation's founding.

Business interests, not national security or the public welfare, drive Harper's agenda. America accounts for 87% of Canada's exports, and Canadian businesses are closely allied with US ones. In many instances, it's as subsidiaries with US corporations owning 20% of Canada's non-financial sector, 33% of its oil and gas industry, and many Canadian defense companies linked to US ones as subsidiaries or in a sub-contracting capacity. Canada's influential Department of National Defense (DND), its new Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier and defence minister Gordon O'Connor are on board with Harper as well. They're committed to ramping up the nation's military spending and linking with America's "war on terrorism." It gives them more power to lock in even more as SPP advances and outlines a plan for it across the continent.

Mexico has its part to play as well. With threats and fear-mongering, it's using drug-related violence as a pretext for cracking down on simmering unrest wherever it surfaces with plenty of US military aid to do it. The scheme is to quiet and cow millions in the country opposing democracy, Mexican-style. It made National Action Party (PAN) Felipe Calderon president in a process decided before people ever voted last July 2 the way it's always worked in Mexican politics. It's got parts of the country, like Oaxaca, in open rebellion against its state governor, Ulises Ruiz Ortiz (known as URO).

It also made the country a tinderbox of discontent with growing numbers in it fed up with sham elections, decades of repression, deepening poverty and an entrenched system of privilege for the rich and powerful. Mega-billionaire Carlos Slim just passed Bill Gates by $8.6 billion to become the world's richest man in a country with the second largest number of billionaires in Latin America after Brazil and among the top ten in the world with the greatest number of them. The US tops all nations by a wide margin with far more in New York and Los Angeles alone than anywhere else.

Calderon to their rescue to make his own richer. He's got 30,000 troops stomping on the people and fighting Washington's wars on Mexico's streets and along its near-2000 mile northern border. He also has to protect state oil company Pemex after a series of July explosions attacked the company's gas pipelines in the central Mexican state of Guanajuato. It affected 800 companies incurring losses of $5 - 10 million a day and caused 5000 people to be evacuated from 20 surrounding communities.

A group called the Popular or People's Revolutionary Army (EPR) claimed responsibility saying it demands release of two men detained unjustly in Oaxaca in May and held as political prisoners. The group's communique also said the attacks were part of a "national campaign against the interests of the oligarchy and of this illegitimate government (in power from the stolen 2006 election) that has been put in motion." It's another sign how polarized Mexican society is with those losing out in it striking back.

In the US, poverty is growing and the wealth disparity is unprecedented. However, things are much worse in Mexico. It has the world's fourth largest number of millionaires, but poverty's been rising since the 1970s, and since the mid-1980s the nation's poor have been reeling under the affects of IMF-imposed structural adjustment policies mandating large-scale privatizations and wage restraints. Then came NAFTA in 1994. It devastated millions of Mexicans, forced many north to survive, and may by one estimate eventually displace 10 million small farmers from their land (plus their families) into poverty assuring they'll head north in desperation.

Today nearly one-third of Mexicans live on $2 or less a day, and millions can't afford basic needs like enough food, decent shelter and medical care when sick. It didn't help that Felipe Calderon allowed staple corn prices to skyrocket causing tortilla prices to spike by 50% in most regions devastating impoverished consumers. They can't afford the staple they rely on, and small Mexican corn producers are even less able to compete with subsidized imports that wasn't possible post-NAFTA.

These are the issues generating mass civil unrest and disobedience that simmer beneath the surface when they're not visible on the streets like in Oaxaca since last May, 2006. It's gone on in spite of harsh efforts to crush it violently with Federal Preventative Police (PFP) and military forces launched against it on the pretext of fighting drugs traffickers and terrorism.

Calderon's 30,000 Mexican troops are also in a third or more of the nation's states, civil rights are suspended and widespread abuses are reported because the military got a mandate to "use all necessary force to resolve disturbances and return peace to society." That's just a hint of what's coming across Mexico and the continent under full implementation of SPP that won't tolerate opposition and will crack down hard against it. Mexican law now allows it after passage of the draconian "International Terrorism Law" criminalizing dissent, calling it terrorism, and imposing harsh sentences for using "violence against persons, things, or public services that spread (enough) alarm or fear in the population....to threaten national security or pressure authorities to take certain determinations."

The press is also targeted with prohibitions against "publish(ing) or distribut(ing)....photos or images without the express consent of those featured," a condition impossible to meet. Social protests may be criminalized as well with resistance movements like the Zapatistas and Oaxacan Popular Peoples' Assembly (APPO) labeled terrorist organizations and their leaders subject to 40 year mandated prison terms if charged and convicted. And President Calderon wants Mexico's Congress to pass an amendment giving him constitutional powers to tap phones and search private residences without first obtaining court-ordered approval under any conditions he claims is "urgent."

Mexico's hard right Supreme Court of Nacional Justice (SCJN) is supportive. Last year it declared Mexico's military can aid police in cases of public security that can be anything the state says it is. The Court also ruled law enforcement officials need no court-ordered warrants to search and seize in "flagrant situations" that can also mean anything and that violates the American Convention of Human Rights adopted as Mexican law.

Then there's Calderon's war on drugs and the cartels that's, in fact, a war no different than Colombia's war on dissident resistance groups like the FARC and ELN. Like Plan Colombia, Washington has a similar one for Mexico, so call it what it is - Plan Mexico with tens of millions in funding, equipment and technology to back it up. Also call it US-supported and funded state terrorism in a grand scheme to militarize the country and crack down on dissent and resistance to authoritarian rule at the federal, state and local levels. It's partnered with Washington in its phony "war on terrorism" to maintain order, crush opposition and incarcerate anyone interfering or in the way.

US military elements already operate inside Mexico freely and covertly, and a 1994 Pentagon briefing paper, declassified under FOIA, hinted at a US invasion if the country became destabilized or the government faced the threat of being overthrown because of "widespread economic and social chaos" that would jeopardize US investments, access to oil, overall trade, and would create great numbers of immigrants heading north.

Plans are in place and are playing out to snuff out trouble before it spirals out of control, and the proposed US immigration bill was to provide funding for it through stepped up militarization. But even with the bill defeated, the money's coming and US forces will follow if needed. Congressional budgeting calls for millions in Mexican military aid and massive new border detention centers for up to 30,000 detainees for starters with two notorious ones discussed below already operating. What's planned on the border will also likely show up anywhere in all three SPP countries to defuse social discontent by disappearing a large new political prisoner population into black holes of repressive incarceration. That's SPP's promise and scheme to create police state North America making the continent safe for corporate interests by revoking ours.

Raymondville and Hutto Texas Immigrant Prison Detention Centers

The Willacy immigrant detention center at Raymondville, Texas, is oppressive enough to be called "Ritmo." It's run by the private for-profit MTC Corporation and is currently the largest immigrant prison in the country in the remote southern tip of the state. It cost $65 million to build, is a "tent city," and is ringed by barbed wire and 14-foot high chain-link fences. It currently holds over 2000 immigrant detainees under repressive conditions including 23 hour a day lockdowns in 10 windowless hothouses. Entire families are incarcerated there, fed poor or insufficient food, given inadequate and delayed medical care, and treated inhumanely in unsafe conditions for extended periods lasting months.

Conditions overall are abusive, disciplinary punishment harsh, with detainees having to put up with no partitions or doors separating five toilets, five sinks, five shower heads and eating areas where some days detainees lack utensils and eat with their hands. Lights are kept on round the clock, clothing is inadequate, and on cold days detainees are kept outside for an allowed daily hour in short-sleeved uniforms with no warm protective clothing like blankets, sweat shirts or jackets.

The Hutto Residential Center is another immigrant detention center in Taylor, Texas currently holding around 400 prisoners including 200 children and infants. Few detainees here or at other immigrant prisons committed crimes or were charged with any, yet they're treated like criminals because they were forced here to survive NAFTA and DR-CAFTA inflicted job losses. They're victims of US repressive trade policies but are treated like criminals made to suffer retribution for exploitative state practices committed against them.

Post 9/11, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was passed establishing the repressive Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and in March, 2003 its largest investigative and enforcement arm - the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). It's charged with protecting public safety by identifying and targeting "criminal" and "terrorist" threats to the country that include Latino and other desperate for work undocumented immigrants forced to come here to survive.

ICE was established to apprehend them at the border or hunt them down relentlessly once here. It has four integrated divisions, one of which is policing our southern border and conducting terror-raid undocumented immigrant worker roundups with those apprehended headed for abusive detention at facilities like Raymondville and Hutto. There and at other facilities like them, ICE-detained immigrants number around 28,000 on an average day with totals heading for 30,000 or more by year end.

Hutto is run by Corrections Corporation of American, the largest for-profit private prison operator in the country. It has 64 facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia with a capacity for incarcerating over 69,000 inmates. It's reputation is unsavory based on former prisoner accounts of severe abuse, inadequate medical and educational services, poor or noxious food and overall inhumane conditions including rat and roach-infested cramped centers, inadequate basic hygiene, rapes, beatings and deaths at their facilities.

The Hutto facility in Taylor, Texas houses immigrant detainees. It's particularly notorious for treating young children no differently than adults, including some too young to know where they are or why and older ones with no idea why they're detained at all. Conditions are made worse by abusive guards and uncaring officials.

The daily routine is stultifying and cruel. Families are awakened at 5:30AM and allowed 30 minutes to bathe and dress. They then get 20 minutes to eat food that's often poor quality, inedible, and/or inadequate. If children haven't finished in time, their food is thrown out and they're left to go hungry.

Following meals, prisoners are returned to their cells, aren't allowed out, denied sleep during the day, and forced to sit and endure boredom to pass the time. No books are allowed, and frequent head counts are taken throughout the day to assure no one escaped. Educational facilities for children are pathetically inadequate at one hour a day in which practically nothing is taught, and conditions and treatment overall are so bad the ACLU sued DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff on March 6 on behalf of 10 abused children at Hutto. The US District Court judge hearing the case, Sam Sparks, set an expedited trial date for August, agreeing with the plaintiff that detainee treatment at Hutto fails to meet federal standards.

Homeland Security Police State Justice for Everyone

Post-9/11, Muslims and Latino immigrants have been targeted by the Bush administration, falsely charged with terrorism and other crimes, and subjected to abusive harassment and persecution. They've been victimized by mass roundups, detentions, prosecutions and deportations the result of baseless claims they threaten national security. If full-blown SPP security measures are implemented, anyone challenging, or seen threatening, state authority may henceforth be subjected to similar harsh treatment. It's practically that way now, but expect lots worse ahead. The rule of law will be weakened or ignored, civil liberties and essential human needs further eroded, and state and corporate power tightened enough to be in full control.

Dissent no longer will be tolerated, and anyone seen as a threat in an age of a "war on terrorism" will be targeted, just as Muslims and immigrants are today. Preparations are in progress for mass detentions with Halliburton the beneficiary of a DHS contingency contract worth up to $385 million to build US-based detention centers. Their stated purpose is for "detention and processing" in case of an "emergency influx of immigrants....or to support the rapid development of new programs (for planned) expansion facilities (able to hold 5000 or more persons)."

This language provides cover for planned concentration camps targeting anyone for indefinite detention as a perceived enemy of the state or threat to national security any time henceforth. The idea is to have facilities ready in case martial law is declared for any reason. It might include the kind of major "terrorist" attack DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff practically signaled is coming later this summer to a Chicago Tribune editorial board July 10. ABC News also hyped the story citing a new FBI analysis of Al-Queda messages warning of "continued messages that convey their strategic intent to strike the US homeland and US interests worldwide (that) should not be discounted as merely deceptive noise." The rest of the corporate media jumped on the story as well to prepare the public for full militarization of the country if what Chertoff and a number of intelligence analysts believe is virtually certain ahead.

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

These are ominous developments signaled with very dangerous language. It suggests the likelihood of an impending terror attack severe enough to warrant suspension of the Constitution followed by martial law. It means anyone may be considered a threat to national security and detained indefinitely with or without evidence to prove it. It further empowers the state, through the military, to act preventively through mass roundups and detentions. No one will be safe or spared if targeted and will be subject to police state justice granting them none.

A full-scale militarization of the country can be implemented any time on what a 1988 Reagan era Executive Order 12656 called any "national security emergency" defined as "Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."

Other repressive legislation's already in place as well. Under Patriot and Military Commission Acts justice, constitutional rights are severely weakened, and we're all "enemy combatants" stripped of our habeas and due process rights, subject to indefinite detentions, denied our right to counsel and at the mercy of military tribunal justice with no right of appeal.

Welcome to North America's Security and Prosperity Partnership guaranteeing it to elitist interests by denying it to the people of three nations. They're to be parts of the new "united continent of America," or North American Union, run by dark forces in Washington that won't move out when a new president moves in January 20, 2009.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on The MicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Plan Iraq - Permanent Occupation

Plan Iraq - Permanent Occupation - by Stephen Lendman

Congress is back from its July 4 break and with it more bluster and political posturing on changing course to keep things the same, including everything not working in place. It's the same old scheme, back again, to fool enough of the people all the time and most all of them long enough to move on to the next change of course mission shift starting the whole cycle over again. Even the blind can see the hopelessness of staying the course in Iraq. Aside from its lawlessness and immorality, pushing on with a failed effort qualifies as a classic definition of insanity - continuing the same failed policies, expecting different results.

The only sensible, honorable option is a full, speedy withdrawal along with providing multi-billions for Iraqis to rebuild what we destroyed and have no intention restoring now or ever beyond what's needed for permanent occupation. The only other honorable option is owning up to what no one in Washington or the major media will do - that the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are illegal wars of aggression making those responsible for them in the administration and Congress war criminals warranting prosecution for their crimes.

That won't happen nor will the administration and Congress do anything more substantive than say one thing and do another. It's been an unbroken pattern since 9/11, and especially on Afghanistan and throughout the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Both wars were sold through lies and deceit. They're based on a fictitious "outside enemy" threat without which no "war on terrorism" could exist, and no imperial foreign wars could be waged.

They're possible only by scaring the public enough to believe the threat is still real, and "Enemy Number One" Osama bin Laden (recruited through Pakistan's ISI as a CIA asset in the 1980s) and Al-Queda represent it. So with Saddam gone and no WMDs found, staying the course is vital to the nation's security even when, in fact, the truth is the opposite, crying wolf's wearing thin, and selling snake oil solutions get harder to do. But schemers keep trying with complicit Democrats as much part of the scam as Republicans and Bush loyalists, dwindling down to a precious hard line few but still around in key positions making noise.

With "the walls of Jericho" crumbling around him as the world's most hated man and the ship of state listing badly, a pathetic caricature of a president keeps pleading for more time. He claims it's needed to head off the threat of "mass killing on a horrific scale" in Iraq and plenty at home as well. He then continues using the same timeworn line that the war can be won, the "surge" is working, give it a chance, and withdrawing will be disastrous. Be more patient, and we'll know more in September we're told.

The Iraqi puppet government gets blamed for what's gone wrong with no one in Washington pointing the finger where it belongs. George Bush can do no better than keep asking Congress and the public "to give (generalissimo) David Petraeus a chance to come back (September 15) and tell us whether his (unworkable) strategy is working, and then we can work together on a way forward (further over the cliff)."

At his July 12 news conference, he never mentioned and attending shameless journalists never pressed him on CIA Director Michael Hayden's earlier bleak assessment of things on the ground. He called the Iraqi puppet government "unable to govern" and its inability to do it "irreversible." Also not discussed was the July UN refugee agency's plea for doubling its Iraq funding to $123 million for the growing humanitarian needs of an estimated 2000 people fleeing uncontrollable violence in the country daily (60,000 a month) and an estimated four million or more displaced refugees within and outside the country.

No comment or questions were raised either on what journalists Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian (daughter of US political prisoner Sami Al-Arian) reported in the July 30 issue of The Nation. Based on interviews with 50 returning Iraq combat veterans (ranking from privates to captains), they wrote about "disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops" and an indiscriminate use of force (with pictures to prove it) amounting to a "depraved enterprise." Mentioned were accounts of American troops gratuitously killing Iraqi civilians, including children, that these actions are common, go unreported, are rarely investigated, and almost always go unpunished.

George Bush's comments (and most others) ignore as well that over 7 in 10 Americans favor a force withdrawal, over 60% say the war was a mistake, only one in five believe the "surge" improved things, and new polls keep showing the numbers getting worse the longer the conflict continues. It's got the president's approval rating barely above the lowest ever registered since polling began with Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, during the unpopular Korean war, Jimmy Carter, briefly in 1980, and his own father sharing bottom honors.

Maybe George Bush is kept above rock bottom through some creative manipulation of the data or the result of what questions were asked, to whom, the phrasing used, and the order in which they were presented. It seems likely for the most despised, distrusted and disgraced US president ever. Even clever pollsters, however, can't salvage Dick Cheney's rating. At a bottom-scraping 12% reported, it's the lowest number scored for a president or vice-president ever, by far and then some.

The reason is simple. A decisive majority in the country think the war's unwinnable, was a mistake, want it ended, and know it was based on lies. People resent being had. Even through heavily filtered mainstream news reports, they know the situation on the ground is out of control and an appalling US-inflicted crime against humanity atrocity of enormous proportions.

No one in Iraq is safe anywhere, even in the heavily secured, fortress-like Green Zone becoming more like a embattled one daily with regular attacks on it causing damage, injuries and deaths. Few are reported, but one on July 10 was with two to three dozen katyusha rockets and mortar rounds striking inside the world's "ultimate gated community" killing at least three persons and wounding 25 or more. Throughout the country, violence long ago spiraled out of control, and since the "surge" began in February, even the Pentagon admits things are worse, not better, in its quarterly April - June report to Congress.

It contradicts generalissimo Petraeus' claim of "astonishing signs of normalcy" in Baghdad overall and "breathtaking" progress even though he (and others high up) earlier said repeatedly there's no military solution to the conflict. The only thing "breathtaking" about Petraeus is his inconsistency and that he's either more incompetent than Custer at the "Little Bighorn" or a man who'll say anything to please George Bush. On the ground, in fact, civilian deaths are higher than ever. They number well over 5000 a month known about and countless others never reported, the claimed June numbers notwithstanding that are too low to be believed and should be discounted and ignored as meaningless. In addition, US forces are sustaining more attacks and suffered the highest level of listed fatalities and injuries in the latest three month April - June period since the war began.

Nearly everyone outside the administration and Congress knows the war is lost, but no one's brave enough to admit it or do anything about it. So shifting mission means "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" with the dominant media always in tow to shape the facts on the ground to fit the policy. Admiral Farragut would be proud.

Now it's back to the political drawing board with a repackaged new scheme certain to end up little different from the last one. Ideas floating promise a substantial drawdown of troops leaving behind what's claimed is needed to maintain security for the Iraqi people that's killing thousands of them every month. All NATO combined can't contain the hate and growing opposition in both war zones matched against any size occupying force put in place to contain them. Iraq and Afghanistan have a long history of resisting occupiers and a successful record of ousting them in the end. It will be the same this time as earlier after many more lives are lost in a futile effort to prove otherwise.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the struggle for liberation is on the ground. At home, shifting mission is being concocted by scared politicians up for reelection in 2008. They'll face millions of angry voters fed up with wars they want ended and ready to throw out the bums who won't do it. So it's back to political posturing (again) with Democrats and Republicans trying to convince voters this time they mean it, and what they say is what they'll follow through on. It's the same old repackaged scam in the nation's capitol where nothing can be taken on its face. It's high time the public realized the criminal class there is bipartisan, and nothing short of a new breed of uncorrupted officials will change things. And that won't happen until enough fed up voters elect them.

For now it's business as usual, and summer battle lines have the "intrepid" Democrat-led Congress and a few nervous Republican defectors facing off with the Bush administration on the FY 2008 DOD budget. It calls for an astonishing $648.8 billion plus an additional $142 billion war supplemental likely to end up topping $800 billion when the dust settles and usual pork is added in. Debate will play out the same as last year with Democrats in the end failing to use the one constitutional power Congress alone has - the appropriation authority to cut off funding and end the Bush administration's imperial adventurism once and for all. No money, no wars, that simple.

It's apparently too simple, and all that's likely ahead is more disingenuous posturing over restricting troop deployments and setting an open-ended timetable for an unspecified partial withdrawal at the discretion of the administration taking full advantage to do as it pleases. And if that doesn't work, George Bush promises to veto any legislation setting timelines for withdrawal he'll ignore even if overridden. On July 10, he repeated his earlier statements that Iraq troop levels "will be decided by our commanders on the ground (obeying White House orders), not by political figures in Washington, DC" (except him, Dick Cheney and their hard line cronies.

The president has no more to fear from "opposition" Democrats and "defecting" Republicans than he had before, but he's quivering anyway. Their posturing (and his) is as phony now as immediately post-9/11 in selling the Afghan war and enacting police state laws. It's as bad as in pre-March, 2003, last year's budget debate, and this spring's agreement to continue funding through September with George Bush certifying (on his word alone) progress is being made and Iraqis are carrying their share of the burden that's impossible because the world's only superpower can't handle its own.

But note Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's compromising language with a September 15 administration/Pentagon accountability report upcoming: "The war is headed in a dangerous direction, and Americans are united in the belief that we cannot wait until the administration's September report before we change course in Iraq." His next statement shows he's not preaching pullout but only says "We cannot ask our military to continue to fight without a strategy for success (never mind there is none short of full, unconditional withdrawal), and we certainly cannot ask them to fight before they are ready to do so."

He's referring to deployment lengths (unchanged after July 11 Senate amendments were blocked) and concern for a broken military the Pentagon already admits to. The likely outcome of current debate will be the same quick fix as before, save for a few dubious amendments achieving nothing. In the end, the compromise solution will be to kick the can down the road and throw lots more money at the problem hoping it will go away. It'll only get worse. No amount can salvage a lost war, lawmakers and the Pentagon know it, but solutions like last year and this spring are coming with bloated budgets getting more bloated.

Ignore meaningless party line votes like the one the House passed July 12 for withdrawing most combat troops by April 1, 2008. Not while this administration's in power, and so far, the Senate's going nowhere. It can't get the 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican promised filibuster, and votes cast in both Houses are to deceive voters, not get action. They're made knowing they're safe with George Bush promising to veto any change of course and can make it stick.

The wars will thus continue to progress in an endless cycle of more spending with no results beyond growing deficits, intensifying public anger, greater violence on the ground, and defeats getting worse as the conflicts drag on. George Bush calls it "progress. I know we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must" he said on July 12. Incredibly, he claimed it on eight trivial military benchmarks under US control, blaming eight more important political failures on the Iraqi puppet government in charge of little more than cleaning daily rubble and dead bodies off streets. He added results to date are a mixed bag and overall it's too early to pass judgment - after over four disastrous years of failure and a conflict longer in duration than WW II when war raged on three continents against formidable enemies, and it was no simple task beating them.

It again proves this man is unchallenged as a world champion serial liar. By now, he may believe some of his own lies the way writer Alex Cockburn said Ronald Reagan believed his. "Truth (for the great fabricator) was what he happened to be saying at the time. He (and Bush) went one better than George Washington in that he couldn't tell a lie and he couldn't tell the truth, since he couldn't tell the difference between the two."

There is a difference, however, between the two deceivers. During his first term at least, Reagan (as a former actor, albeit a B-rated one) did a reasonable job impersonating a president. He could find his "mark" and read his lines. George Bush never rose to that level even as Texas governor or any other time in his life, and when it comes to lying, he can't stop doing it even when he knows the difference. He proved it July 12 in his ludicrous portrayal of the true state of things in Iraq. It's part of his desperate effort for new congressional funding in even greater amounts. To get it, he ignores growing public disenchantment and deep revulsion about a criminal lost cause enterprise launched and continued on the basis of lies.

That notwithstanding, Reid and other Democrats have their grandiose notions of mission shift. It's to avoid "a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq" with legislation he'll propose calling for permanent occupation forces on the ground for the spurious notion of "conduct(ing) counterterrorism operations, protect(ing) our assets (meaning oil) and train(ing) Iraqi forces." Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Carl Levin is on board with him. He'll support a limited troop withdrawal by late year, an end to combat operations on the ground by April 30, 2008 with Iraqi forces taking over, and a large remaining permanent occupation force hunkered down inside fortified super-bases. Never mind what Iraqis want that excludes our presence in their country. And the same is true for the Afghans.

Voices from the administration, Pentagon, Congress and the dominant media assure they'll be disappointed as the top goal is salvaging America's imperial adventurism and mission shifting current operations into a workable permanent occupation. Here's why. The Afghan and Iraq wars are for resources, primarily oil, and in the parts of the world where more than four-fifths of proved reserves are located. Canadian journalist and author Linda McQuaig explains the grandest of grand prizes is "hidden in plain sight" in Iraq. It's the country's oil treasure - the planet's last remaining bonanza of easily harvested "low-hanging fruit" with more potential reserves than Saudi Arabia, the great majority of them untapped.

It makes the country "the most sought after real estate on the face of the earth" according to one Wall Street oil analyst she quoted. Even with dated information on its potential, it's known Iraq has at least 10% of dwindling world reserves. But it's potential was "frozen in time" with no new development in over two decades because of intervening wars in the 1980s, economic sanctions following the Gulf war in 1991, and the current war ongoing since March, 2003. If the country's potential doubles or triples, as Saudi Arabia's did in the last 20 years, it would, in fact, have the world's largest (mostly untapped) proved reserves making Iraq too rich a prize for America and its Big Oil allies to pass up. It's worth trillions of dollars and immense geopolitical power at a time of peak oil in the face of future dwindling supplies, except in this resource-rich country the US won't ever leave as long as there's enough of them in the ground and region to justify staying.

It's why the country is being turned into a giant permanent military base protecting the ocean of oil beneath it Washington intends to control for its Big Oil friends and to have veto power over who gets it, who doesn't, and at what price. To understand what's happening, consider Korea. The US arrived in the country in 1950 following Harry Truman's committing American forces to help the South after Washington's instigated civil war began there on June 25 that year. Fifty-seven years later, around 37,000 troops still remain with no intention to leave. Washington has the same thing in mind for Iraq. The Pentagon set up shop there and intends to stay.

Below is shown, as best we know, how far advanced we've come toward militarizing the country for permanent occupation no matter how debate plays out in Congress. It's all bluster providing cover for administration policy both parties support.

Plan Iraq - Permanent Occupation

Drawdowns, withdrawal, timelines, mission shifting, building democracy and all the other current and long-standing phony rhetoric aside, America is in Iraq to stay as a conqueror and occupier - that is, until Iraqis finally kick us out as they will in time in a part of the world long a graveyard for foreign invaders. But it won't happen quickly or before countless more thousands die, are injured, suffer immeasurably, are displaced, and lose everything. This is the ugly dark side of imperialism, nurtured on conquest, unchallengeable control, and keenly focused on destroying and permanently occupying the cradle of civilization now smashed and planned for dismemberment.

In the meantime, a new "peace candidate" will become president in January, 2009 on the strength of distant echos of Richard Nixon's "peace with honor" 1968 campaign and hopes history would call him a "peacemaker." Instead, there were five and one-half more years of intense war, thousands more American deaths, and one to two million more Southeast Asian victims in Vietnam and the secret wars in Cambodia and Laos.

Whatever little, if anything, a new president does at home, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan will remain with plans for Iraqi forces eventually to do most of our killing and dying for us. If or when they're up to it, the scheme involves US troops staying hunkered down inside their super-bases, used as needed outside them, with massive air power deployed freely to slaughter innocent victims on the ground whenever they resist what no one should ever have to endure. For now, Iraqis have no choice but to bear up and fight back because it's their misfortune to have an ocean of "our" oil beneath their sand we laid claim to.

Already discussed is Iraq's importance as the planet's last remaining "low-hanging fruit" bonanza of mostly untapped oil riches worth trillions of dollars as the key reason America came to stay. The US military arrived in March, 2003 and dug in for the long haul with fixed military installations around the country. Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton, got most of the huge no-bid contracts, worth many billions, to war-profiteer and build them, irrespective of its outlandish record of waste, fraud and abuse.

As of May, 2005, US forces were operating out of 106 bases around the country from an original estimated 120 sites. They range in size from the huge Main Operating Base (MOB) Camp Victory complex near Baghdad airport where thousands of American troops are stationed to smaller ones known as Forward Operation Sites (FOS) that are still major installations. In addition, there are many Cooperative Security Locations (CSL) that are small outposts for as few as 500 personnel, a number of prisons and detention facilities, and an original dozen sites given to Iraqi military or police units that now likely number many more.

Reports vary, and much remains secret, about the administration and Pentagon's current and future construction plans for Iraq. What is known is $18 billion earlier was allocated for in-country work that includes base installations, the US Embassy and whatever other occupation facilities are intended. The current figure is likely much higher. It's also known US engineers are focusing on building 14 large "enduring bases" for extended encampments for the tens of thousands of US forces there now and future replacements.

Professor Emeritus Jules Dufour of the University of Quebec, Canada discussed "The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases" in his July 1, 2007 article posted on Global Research.ca. It included detailed information plus maps and much more on what he called "the Worldwide development of US military power (in place) to view the (entire) Earth surface as a vast territory to conquer, occupy and exploit (for giant US corporate behemoths it's in league with)." He characterizes the scheme as a process of "Humanity....being controlled and enslaved by this Network of US military bases." He and Chalmers Johnson believe they number 1000 or more that, according to Johnson, were in 153 countries as of September, 2001 and now likely in 160 or more. There are also many other secret, espionage, and other bases jointly used in many countries with their hosts.

Dufour says post-9/11, the US built 14 new bases in the Persian Gulf region. It's also involved "in construction and/or reinforcement of 20 bases (106 structured units as a whole) in Iraq" plus others in Afghanistan and other Central Asian former Soviet bloc countries and elsewhere to encircle and control both regions' strategic resources, mainly oil, and the pipeline routes needed to transport it.

Iraq bases are located or are being built around Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk, Nasiriyah, Tikrit, Fallujah and Irbil. There are also plans to rebuild and improve Baghdad, Mosul and other airfields as well as rebuild roads and other essential infrastructure strategically needed for occupation. There are no plans to help the Iraqi people left on their own. They have the barest of essential services, and infrastructure to provide them, like functioning hospitals, medications, electricity, clean water, safe food to eat, fuel, schools, and most everything else.

Most important for the planned long haul will be four to six or more super-sized bases on the order of small towns with their own neighborhoods and kinds of amenities found in typical US ones. Inside them, it's hard distinguishing between Iraq and America unless more sophisticated and better aimed rocket and mortar rounds strike nearby that's becoming more common.

The biggest of these bases so far is the huge Balad one. It houses the major Air Force operation in the country, including its new spacious, state of the art, "Kingpin" air traffic control center dividing the country's airspace into "kill boxes," called the Common Grid Reference System. The largest Army logistical support center is here as well, and it's also where thousands of civilian contractors, in neighborhoods known as "KBR-land," are based with all the comforts of home for them and military personnel when it's quiet inside. The so-called secret Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force (CJSOTF) is also at Balad. It's kept behind "especially high walls" for privacy and seclusive separation from other operations based there.

The al-Asad airbase is the largest marine encampment in the country located in western Anbar province where resistance to US occupying forces has been stiffest. It, too, has a hometown feel with similar amenities to the country's other major bases intended to be permanent. While the Pentagon won't admit it, four super-bases were operating last year with plans likely for at least two more. In addition, it was planned, but now not certain, that British forces would maintain a permanent military presence in the south around Basra where it's now based. If Britain pulls out, as its public demands, the Pentagon will move in and likely expand the facilities with at least another super-sized one for that strategically oil-rich part of the country. They'll need it as the Brits are no more in control there than US forces anywhere else. Their 2006 Operation Sinbad flopped with militias on the ground in full control.

Nonetheless, America came to Iraq to stay as long as the Middle East is resource-rich and the greatest untapped portion by far is in Iraq. But history shows the best-laid plans don't always work out as intended. Occupiers aren't welcome anywhere with Iraq and Afghanistan particularly adept at expelling earlier ones that tried and failed, including the British from both countries who should know better. Journalist Felicity Arbuthnot notes on Global Research.ca July 14 that on this day in 1958, "the Iraqi army toppled the British (post WW I-imposed) royal regime, which had opened the door wide for Western monopolies to plunder the country's oil wealth under unjust concession." Her message to modern-day plunderers: "Listen to history."

Permanency may only be in the eyes of the beholder and may end much sooner than planned. Our super-bases, with all their size, security and comforts of home, may become no more permanent than their mega-predecessors in Danang, Cam Rahn Bay and the Saigon embassy (a miniature compared to the Vatican-sized behemoth in Baghdad's Green Zone) where the last remnants of US presence in Vietnam were helicoptered from its rooftop in defeat and humiliation. It forced us to give up what we intending keeping unchallenged with visions as conquerors no different than today.

In the end, we abandoned them because we were beaten and had no other choice. What a determined third-world Asian country did 30 years ago to the world's strongest superpower, Middle East and Central Asian ones are doing today to the only remaining one slipping fast and running out of excuses why.

It's just a matter of time before history repeats with the same result. Iraqis and Afghans believe it and intend to prove it again. Too bad Washington hard-liners know little history and haven't figured it out. One day they will. They're just slow to catch on. Ruling empires never see the tide turning and that they're swimming against it. George Bush's America is no different. It bit off more than it can swallow and will end the same as others wrecked on the shoals of their own hubris.

The scene is playing out in the graveyard of other imperial powers in the Middle East and Central Asia. It just remains for the final chapter to be written ending rest in peace unless Americans locate their cajones and write their own version first. It has to reject corrupted power politics; remove the criminal class; restore the rule of law; place the rights of humanity and democratic values above wealth and privilege; and end forever the hellish wars fought for them.

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

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

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Remembering The Maestro - Music Master, Anti-Fascist

Remembering the Maestro: Music Master, Anti-Fascist - by Stephen Lendman

The term maestro means a "master" or "teacher" in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. In English it refers to a distinguished musician or noted figure in any artistic field. Most often, however, it's a term of respect for an eminent conductor of classical music. For this writer, the term applies to one great man above all others, and this year commemorates the 50th anniversary of his death - the incomparable Arturo Toscanini whose anti-fascism enhanced his musical prominence and is the reason for this article.

Here's what former New York Times music critic Olin Downes once wrote about him: "Toscanini (had) unparalleled qualities as an interpreter. (His performances showed) profound intuition, abnormal concentration (and) consuming sincerity which make them what they are, and without a precise equivalent in any other conductor of which we know....People marvel at such physical as well as artistic capacity. Toscanini is a physical and mental phenomenon....(The) supreme....spirit of the sovereign artist....sustains him....Watch him as he walks slowly to the podium and mounts the stand. Then see what happens the instant he faces the orchestra, scoreless....taking command immediately with imperious authority and elan. A rock-ribbed steadfastness of tempo emanates from the baton....as the music ebbs and flows from this extraordinary blend of control and release.....Toscanini (is) like the invincible titan and warrior of the faith. (He's) the great master, the ageless hero....the incorruptible and consummate artist (creating) art (that is) greater than man himself....And it is this....which makes his fellow-man his debtor."

The Maestro was born in Parma, Italy March 25, 1867. He began his musical career as a cellist and debuted at age 19 as a conductor in Rio de Janeiro in 1886 when he was unexpectedly called on to substitute for the regular music director. Amazingly, he led the orchestra and cast in Verdi's classic Aida from memory without ever before having done it. It changed his life and the operatic and symphonic world.

Toscanini was considered by many critics and fellow musicians the greatest conductor of his era, or any other, that lasted nearly seven decades from 1886 to his retirement in 1954 at age 86. His perfectionism was demanding and extraordinary and was aided by his phenomenal memory. He conducted all his concerts without scores, remembering every nuance of every note of every performance until once late in his life his memory faltered on April 4, 1954 at age 86. In mid-performance, he stopped conducting live on-air. He covered his eyes and the orchestra, so dependent on his leadership, at first fell silent. With help, he managed to finish the concert with the well-rehearsed orchestra leading their Maestro who led them for so many years. Before the concert's end, Toscanini dropped his baton and left the stage. He never conducted in public again.

Toscanini's musical genius had an enormously enriching influence on many, including this writer. It began a lifelong love for the classics that remains to this day and is still enjoyed in a large collection of old but very serviceable LP recordings of his operas and symphonic works.

The first ever bought is still the one most cherished - his classic 1946 recording of Puccini's La Boheme with a distinguished cast. It was performed live to a worldwide audience on NBC Radio on two successive Sundays beginning 50 years and two days after he premiered it in the Regio Opera House in Turin, Italy for his friend and composer Giacomo Puccini. In the recorded performance, as in some others, Toscanini can be heard humming at several dramatic moments and at one stunning point sighing in an expression of deep emotion. Some critics said it detracted from the performance. Others, and this writer, felt it enriched the listening experience, making it special by glorifying and highlighting it. It made a lasting impact on listeners still remaining for this one over 60 years later.

Toscanini was more than a great music master. He was also uncompromisingly anti-fascist at a time of Mussolini's rise to power in his native Italy in the 1920s followed by Hitler in 1930s Germany. Though non-political overall, throughout that period and during WW II, he was distinguished for his views as a symbol of freedom and humanity when so little of it existed at a time of global war on three continents. More on that below.

Throughout the late 19th century, Toscanini slowly built his reputation conducting in various concert halls throughout Italy. He directed the premiere performances of Leoncavallo's Pagliacci in 1892 and La Boheme in 1896. He also directed the Italian premieres of Wagner's Gotterdammerung in 1895 and Siegfried in 1899 at the famed La Scala opera house that first began operating two years after the United States declared its independence from the British Crown. During his illustrious career, he conducted throughout Europe, North and South America and became the principal conductor of the New York Metropolitan Opera in 1908, remaining there until 1915. In 1926, he debuted with the New York Philharmonic, became its co-conductor in 1927 and its principal music director in 1929.

While on tour in Bologna, Italy in 1931, he was assaulted by fascist thugs for his views, authorities temporarily confiscated his passport, and the Fascist party surrounded his Milan home with carabinieri. During the same period, he was constantly attacked by the Fascist press for his uncompromising views. As a result, Toscanini refused thereafter to conduct in Italy during Mussolini's reign.

In 1933, he withdrew from Bayreuth after Hitler became German Chancellor in January that year. He even sent Hitler a personal telegram stating his views to which the German dictator responded by banning further sale or performance of his recordings. That same year his daughter, Wanda, married famed concert pianist Vladimir Horowitz who performed on-stage and in recordings many times with his renowned father-in-law. In the 1930s, Toscanini resigned from the New York Philharmonic to lead the Vienna Philmarmonic, later withdrawing from the Salzburg Festival in 1938 protesting Hitler's Anschluss takeover of Austria in March that year.

Beginning with his first concert on Christmas Day, 1937, he began his association with the NBC Symphony, many of whose recordings this writer has and treasures as classics. Company president David Sarnoff created the orchestra expressly for the Maestro as an inducement for him to return to New York. He did and remained the orchestra's conductor until his retirement in 1954.

Many critics and classical musicians regard the 1937 - 1954 17 year era as the golden age of symphonic music in America when Arturo Toscanini led the NBC Symphony throughout the period. His weekly concerts were held in NBC's famed Studio 8-H in New York's Rockefeller Center until the fall of 1950 when they were moved to Carnegie Hall for its superior acoustics.

A personal note: Live Sunday evening concerts were broadcast worldwide on NBC Radio, including 10 televised in the US from 1948 - 1952. They were held around the dinner hour in the 1940s and early 1950s. My mother introduced me to them. She played classical piano, listened when able, as did I as a young boy. It began a lifetime love for the classics and the Maestro's incomparable performances that touched everyone hearing them. Toscanini's uncompromising standards of excellence and relentless quest for perfection had a profound effect on his listeners. I'm one of them any time I choose from my large collection of his recordings. They preserve his music forever that's as powerful and moving now as when first performed.

One other personal note: My mother's love of great music was matched by her passion for learning. She pursued it and received her well-deserved degree along with her son in the same class of 1956, seven months before Toscanini's death. It was the first time a mother and son ever graduated together in the 320 year history of the oldest higher institution of learning in the country. June 14, 1956 was her day. Her son just went along for the ride.

Toscanini the Anti-Fascist

As a conductor and anti-fascist, Toscanini was uncompromising. This section covers the political philosophy of a non-political man who was fiercely democratic. It emerged when the Maestro publicly denounced Benito Mussolini after he led his National Fascist Party's march on Rome in October, 1922 declaring himself Il Duce or supreme leader. Toscanini thereafter refused to play the Fascist anthem Giovanezza he didn't consider fit music and wanted nothing to do with the Fascist dictator.

When Italian King Emmanuel III declared himself Emperor of conquered Ethiopia in 1936, Toscanini wrote: "Cursed Rome. Mussolini, the Emperor-King, and the Pope. Pigs, all of them." In a letter to Berlin in 1941, he wrote: "You are too poisoned by the atmosphere that surrounds you, you are all living now too much amid shame and dishonor, without showing any sign of rebellion, to be able to value people like me, who have remained and will remain above the mud, not to give it a worse name, that is drowning the Italians."

Earlier in 1938, he wrote: "I've never been and will never be involved in politics; that is, I became involved only once in '19, and for Mussolini and I repented....I've never taken part in Societies, either political or artistic....I've always believed only an individual can be a gentleman....Everyone ought to express his own opinion honestly and courageously, then dictators, criminals, wouldn't last so long."

In February, 1941 Toscanini intervened on behalf of fellow Italian and anti-fascist, Claudio Alcorso. He'd been arrested because of his nationality in allied Australia in July, 1940 and held for what became a bitter three and a half year confinement. It was because Australia judged Italians during the war the way the US viewed Japanese Americans. It made Alcorso believe "a dogmatic mentality was not the sole prerogative of German and Italian Fascists." Toscanini's efforts failed despite repeated efforts, though Alcorso was finally freed after Mussolini and his Fascist party fell in 1943.

While Mussolini ruled as Italy's dictator, the Maestro refused to perform in his native country including at the famed Milan La Scala opera house. He publicly stated: "Never! I refuse to turn La Scala into a market place for Fascist demonstrations. They have the square outside and also the Galleria nearby for that, but while I conduct the Scala orchestra, it will remain the home of opera and never will it become a propaganda platform." Mussolini gave his brazen response: "Never will my feet cross the threshold of La Scala until Toscanini, the anti-Fascist, goes from there. How dare he refuse to play Giovanezza (the Fascist anthem)?"

Toscanini condemned Mussolini for his comments telling La Scala's directors: "I will conduct Giovanezza never and for nobody!" He stood resolute by his word. He deplored dictatorships and never played in Czarist or Stalinist Russia as well. He was an implacable enemy of tyranny. In Weimar pre-Hitler Germany, he was the first non-German to appear at the Wagner Festspielhaus in Bayreuth, but refused to return in 1933 after Hitler came to power. He denounced the Nazi's treatment of Jewish musicians in protest. He also refused to conduct at Austria's Salzburg Festival because noted Jewish conductor Bruno Walter's performances there weren't broadcast in Germany. Later in 1938 and 1939, he conducted, without compensation, at a Lucerne, Switzerland festival with an orchestra entirely composed of musicians who'd fled German persecution.

During WW II, Toscanini said: "Italy will certainly have a revolution as a result of the current war; the Allies will either favor and help it, or hinder it. The Allies' attitude will determine whether the revolution will, or will not, result in an orderly democratic government...." If he were still living, Toscanini would be outspoken about today's world and the ugliness Washington injects in it. He'd denounce fascism's rise in America and the power of wealth and privilege driving it. He was a democrat and patriot whose influential views had weight.

Today the Mastro would be in the artistic forefront leading the struggle for the same freedoms he believed in when fascism earlier engulfed Europe, Asia and North Africa in its greatest of all wars. In words and stunning music, he'd be in the lead to prevent it happening again so the spirit of equity, social justice and peace on earth could prevail for all above the darkness of tyranny now threatening everyone in the age of George Bush's America.

Toscanini conducted his last concert on April 4, 1954 as mentioned above. Always one to surprise (as he did two and a half months earlier choosing Un Ballo in maschera over Rigoletto for his final opera performance), he eschewed his native Italy and chose an all-Wagner program for the occasion. He died of a stroke at age 89 on January 16, 1957. His extraordinary music and democratic spirit are sorely missed but not forgotten.

Throughout the year, many Toscanini commemorative concerts and events were and are still being held in the US, his native Italy and elsewhere. Most notable was the New York Public Library's showcase exhibition of rare Library material on the Maestro's legacy that ran from February 21 through May 25, 2007. It was called Arturo Toscanini: Homage to the Maestro. It included rare rehearsal and performance recordings and unique documents on Toscanini's multifaceted persona. Among items on exhibit were photographs, annotated scores, letters, and many seldom ever seen unpublished materials donated by the Toscanini family to the Library's Music Division. Through these and other documents, the Maestro's memory, spirit and music remains alive.

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

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

Monday, July 09, 2007

Making Gaza "Scream"

Making Gaza "Scream" - by Stephen Lendman

Making Gaza "scream" is same kind of scheme the Nixon administration planned for Chile after social democrat Salvador Allende won a plurality of the votes in September, 1970. Before the Chilean Congress confirmed him as president in October, an infamous Nixon CIA Director Richard Helms handwritten note read: "One in 10 chance perhaps, but save Chile!...not concerned with risks involved...$10,000,000 available, more if necessary...make the economy 'scream.' " By it, he meant saving the country from a socially responsible leader, like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, using his nation's wealth equitably and not just for its privileged elites. "Scream" it did through Nixon's "soft line" scheme "to do all within our power to condemn Chile and Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty," in the words of his Chilean ambassador Edward Korry.

It lasted three years until a "hard line" one replaced it on another September 11 Chileans won't soon forget in 1973. It was when a CIA-orchestrated military coup ended the most vibrant democracy in the Americas, replacing it with the brutal 17 year reign of General Augusto Pinochet.

The US has a notorious record of imposing economic or political sanctions against any nation daring to operate outside of Washington Consensus political and market rules. It's also quick to levy trade sanctions for corporate friends whose notion of "free trade" is the one-way kind benefitting them. The Clinton administration was a frequent abuser of these practices imposing them unilaterally against 35 or more countries during its eight years in power. They were also in place against the Soviet bloc during the Cold War and other nations aligned with it. The Bush administration currently has them in place against such countries as Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Burma, Belarus, Sudan, and Venezuela. It's our way of saying we're boss, what we say goes and no outliers are tolerated even when they only wish to govern independently from us or are targeted by a close ally we support.

That's the plight of the Palestinians who've been "screaming" for six decades following Israel's "war of independence" they call al-Nakba, the catastrophe. In May, 1948, they were deprived of four-fifths of their former land and the remainder for the past 40 years. Conditions then became especially harsh after January 25, 2006 when they rejected ruling Fatah's institutionalized corruption and willingness to be Israel's enforcer for the benefits it afforded its leaders. They defied predictions and democratically elected a majority of Hamas members to Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) seats because they promised to do what Fatah wouldn't - serve their own people, not the state of Israel against them.

Ever since, they've paid dearly for their choice. Israel, the US and West ended all outside aid, imposed an economic embargo and sanctions, and politically isolated the ruling Hamas government. Repressive Israeli rule was tightened and harsh intervention and daily attacks in the Territories followed. It included fomenting internal conflict on Gaza streets leading up to Hamas defeating the heavily US and Israeli-armed opposition Fatah insurgent forces, regaining control of its own territory in a surprising show of strength.

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, in league with Israel and the US, then declared a "state of emergency" June 14 and illegally dismissed Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and his national unity government. On June 15, he appointed former IMF and World Bank official Salam Fayyad prime minister (whose party won 2% of the 2006 election votes), and on June 17 swore in a new 13 member illegitimate "emergency" cabinet with plans for future elections excluding Hamas. On June 16, the US said it would lift its ban on the Abbas government and did it formerly on June 18.

On July 1, Israel began releasing frozen Palestinian tax funds transferring $120 million in a first installment to Abbas in the West Bank. The amount is one-sixth what Palestinians say they're owed (around $700 million) from tax revenues Israel illegally withheld beginning February 1, 2006 after Hamas' election January 25. Hamas is denied all aid from Israeli and western sources in a continuing effort to keep its Gaza-led government isolated, economic sanctions on it in place, and its people kept in desperate need of help not forthcoming.

More on that below. In the meantime, Israeli prime minister Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin said "Israel is committed to working with the new Palestinian government. We hope that together they (meaning the Abbas West Bank self-imposed government) will be able to build a strong administration which will give them a better capability to enter into full negotiations."

She neglected to mention Abbas' "emergency" government has no legitimacy, its US and Israeli funded and supported action was a brazen coup d'etat against a democratically elected government, and by "full negotiations" she means bowing to Israeli demands and abandoning the rights and needs of the Palestinian people.

Hamas called Israel's disbursement to Abbas "financial bribery (and) political blackmail" meant to keep Gaza and the West Bank divided and Palestinians in a state of internal conflict saving Israel some of the bother of stirring it up itself. Prime minister Ismail Haniyeh says the Palestinians' only recourse is "resistance. The Americans won't give us anything. Israel won't give us anything. Our land, our nation will not come back to us except with steadfastness and resistance" against what Israeli prime minister Olmert calls "cooperation (from Abbas in the West Bank that) will....enable us to make progress on the diplomatic track." Of course, it's to benefit Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people who aren't likely to accept the fate its quisling president and Israel have in mind for them.

Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza Deepens

Here's how several concerned NGOs headline Gaza's deepening crisis. It won't improve as long as Israel, the US and West continue their war against the democratically elected Hamas government most Palestinians still strongly support.

Oxfam Great Britain is a member of Oxfam International, a development and relief organization working to alleviate poverty, human suffering and injustice worldwide, currently operating in over 30 countries. It highlights the crisis in Gaza in its June 19 article titled "Locked in Gaza" describing the "increasing desperation of Gazans as shortages of fuel, water and food are reported." Israel keeps people there "locked in Gaza," unable to move even for those desperately needing medical care in Israel for what's unavailable at home.

It mentions two Palestinians were shot dead June 18 trying to cross the checkpoint separating Gaza from Israel, almost a daily occurrence in the Territories. It says water in Gaza is a major problem as there's little electricity to pump it. Food is running out as well as all of it comes from outside Gaza city. Markets are empty, people have little or no money, borders are closed, the threat of starvation for many is real. Israel allows no international NGOs to operate in Gaza so the people aren't being helped when their need is greatest.

On July 6, Oxfam issued an updated press release. Its assessment of conditions in Gaza was grim warning "thousands of refugees across Gaza will face imminent cuts in water and sewage services if more fuel is not provided in the coming days and weeks." It said the Gaza Coastal Municipality Water Utility (CMWU) had to cut its water supply in half from eight to four hours a day because of fuel shortages affecting 65,000 people in the Strip's largest camp. Fuel is also running out for sewage drainage pumps in the Saflawi neighborhood. Without it, "sewage (may spill) into the streets....in days, contaminating the remaining water supply....spreading life-threatening disease (in) the densely-populated camp."

It continued saying other parts of Gaza face the same problem, affecting its entire 1.5 million population. Fuel may be exhausted in days at the hottest time of year when water demand is highest. In the face of this impending crisis, the Abbas government in the West Bank is doing nothing to alleviate it. Gaza is totally dependent on outside help unable to do its job because Israel closed border crossings and sealed off the entire Territory from the outside world.

A UN report is no more encouraging from an article on Media for Global Development June 15. It says the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian refugees was forced to scale back its work while Gaza was in conflict. It "severely limited its ability to (bring in vitally needed) humanitarian supplies" to the 80% of Gazans dependent on them. It calls 40% of the population "food insecure" meaning they could starve without help. It explained even in the absence of street fighting there are critical shortages of food, water, medical supplies, fuel and other essentials. Outside help is critically needed, but Gazans aren't getting it because Israel closed the entry points between Egypt and the Strip stopping critically needed supplies from entering.

The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B'Tselem, raised its alarm as well June 17 with an article titled "Urgent Appeal from Israeli Human Rights Groups to Israeli Defense Minister: Open Gaza's Borders to Prevent a Humanitarian Crisis." It says hundreds of refugees are trapped between the sealed Erez crossing and Hamas inside Gaza, including the sick and injured from recent events in the Territory. It also cites critical food and medical supply shortages and urgently says: "The state of Israel cannot stand idly by at a time when the fundamental human rights of Gaza residents are being violated and the right to life is being threatened."

It mentions eight Israeli human rights organizations warning of a crisis that will worsen as long as Israel "continues to close borders and isolate Gaza from the outside world by preventing the supply of essential goods, trapping residents inside the Gaza Strip, and preventing Gaza residents who traveled outside the Strip from returning home" including the chronically sick and injured.

With essential border crossings closed, supplies aren't coming in. Fresh food, such as meat, fruit and dairy products are disappearing. The World Food Program warns of dangerous food shortages. B'Tselem calls Israel's border closings and disconnect of Gaza's electricity and water grid an act of collective punishment against all Gazans in violation of international law. The Israeli human rights organization calls on the state of Israel to end these actions.

The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) is a Jerusalem-based NGO "dedicated to fostering democracy and good governance within Palestinian society." It aims "to serve as a Palestinian platform for global dialogue and cooperation guided by the principles of democracy, human rights, gender equity, and participatory governance."

That said, MIFTAH's article June 23 headlined "Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza." It warns of a major humanitarian disaster being inevitable unless Israel eases its border crossing restrictions and allows in vitally needed supplies. At present, only a two to four week supply of food remains. Essential food and other supplies "are waiting to enter Gaza" but have been denied entry by Israel since Hamas' takeover in June. It mentions the German chapter of UNICEF reporting on the "deteriorating condition of Gaza's children (from) lack of proper sanitation." It heightens the risk of diseases and contagion from some of them with limited medications on hand. So far, Israel is adamant citing "security considerations" for keeping border crossings closed. By that it means it intends to keep punishing all Palestinians collectively for having elected Hamas its government.

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) offers the most detailed and harrowing account of how desperate conditions now are in Gaza. It says how "gravely concerned" it is since Israel tightened its siege by closing all border crossings, including the Rafah International Crossing Point on the Egyptian border. It urgently calls on all states, UN agencies and all international humanitarian organizations "to immediately take steps to pressurize (Israel) to allow the normal flow of basic supplies, including foodstuffs and medical supplies, into the Gaza strip to avoid an imminent crisis that threatens" 1.5 million Gazans. Three-fourths of them live in poverty and nearly as many are unemployed and have no other source of help. Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth. It's also the world's largest (Israeli-imposed) open-air prison. It's more locked down than ever with all border crossing points closed and sealed and Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) attacking the Strip daily.

As long as Israel is unwilling to open them, food, medicines, fuel and other essential supplies can't get in. Palestinians desperately needing medical care outside the Strip can't travel to get it. Gaza hospitals and health centers can't provide essential medical services. PCHR lists the site closures:

-- the Rafah International Crossing Point on the Egyptian border through which Palestinians travel back and forth;

-- the Karni commercial crossing gravely affecting food and other essential deliveries. Mentioned is the shortage of wheat with mills running out and having to shut down. Gaza needs 600 tons of wheat daily;

-- the Sofa crossing through which raw materials enter halting most construction projects;

-- the Kerem Shalom crossing through which food and medicines come;

-- the Erez crossing affecting international and local organizations, patients and commercial traders; and

-- the Nahal Oz crossing through which fuel transits.

PCHR calls on Israel to reconnect Gaza to the outside world and avoid a humanitarian disaster. It wants the "economic siege" on Gaza ended; human rights to be respected; and international law obeyed, including the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV - ratified and accepted by 194 countries as of June, 2006) relating to the rights and protections of civilians in times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under occupation by a foreign power.

It further calls for increasing essential aid from international humanitarian organizations to relieve the deteriorating conditions in the Territory and human suffering. It asks that the rights of all Palestinians be respected and that all efforts be made to ensure them.

PCHR also publishes daily reports and a weekly summary of events on the ground in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). They always center on Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) "continue(d) systematic attacks on Palestinian civilians and property." Its latest weekly summary runs through July 4 and cites the following violence in Gaza and Fatah-run West Bank from daily Israeli incursions in both areas.

In Gaza and the West Bank:

-- 10 Palestinians, including 6 civilians, were killed by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), 3 by extra-judicial assassination in Khan Yunis;

-- 27 Palestinian civilians were wounded by IDF gunfire;

-- IDF conducted 31 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and 3 others in Gaza;

--IDF conducted a 2-day incursion into Nablus and neighboring refugee camps;

-- IDF arrested 92 Palestinian civilians, including 19 children, in the West Bank;

-- IDF continued imposing a total siege on the OPT;

-- 12 Palestinians trapped on the Egyptian side of the Rafah International Crossing Point died for lack of attention to their medical needs;

-- A Palestinian wounded in a car died as IDF obstructed his evacuation to a hospital; ambulances attending the sick and wounded are routinely attacked;

-- IDF arrested 6 other Palestinians at various checkpoints; and

-- In addition to a strict siege on Gaza discussed above, IDF tightened a similar one on Fatah's controlled West Bank isolating Jerusalem from the rest of the Territory. Severe restrictions on movement are in place and additional checkpoints have been erected on main roads and at intersections. These events are part of daily life imposed on Palestinians by their Israeli occupiers making life for them intolerable and the reason they resist.

-- After this report was released, IDF killed at least 11 Palestinians and wounded 25 others on July 5 in what Israeli military officials dismissively called "a routine operation." In response, Hamas officials accused Israel of provoking conflict while they're trying to end it and maintain law and order.

The Palestinian people have endured unbearable hardships and suffering like this for nearly six decades, the result of cruel unremitting Israeli repression of them. Yet they endure, resist and continue working for what they want most - to live freely and securely in peace in their own unoccupied land ruled by governments they elect to serve them. It's the dream of all oppressed people - to one day have the equity and social justice they deserve. By now, Israeli and western governments should know Palestinians won't ever stop struggling for the rights no nation has the right to deny them. One day they'll prevail because they won't give up resisting until they do.

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

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

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Lewis "Scooter" Libby Sentence Commuted

Lewis "Scooter" Libby Sentence Commuted - by Stephen Lendman

On July 2, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington) ruled on US v. Libby (07-3068) saying I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby must be imprisoned while appealing his conviction March 6 of lying to federal investigators and a grand jury and obstructing their probe of the 2003 leaking of CIA official Valerie Plame's identity. The court said Libby "has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question" for him to remain free under federal law. Earlier, US District Judge Reggie Walton refused to let Libby remain free during appeal saying evidence of his guilt was "overwhelming."
Libby faced 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine for his conviction handed down June 5 and as of early July 2 appeared heading for incarceration within weeks.

Enter George Bush in his latest brazen and contemptuous defiance of the law. Within hours of yesterday's court decision, he ignored overwhelming public opposition to a pardon and commuted the sentence of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. Case closed with little more than the president's cynical statement that he "respect(s) the jury's verdict....But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison." Libby needn't worry about the fine either. His rich friends will take care of that, too, as part of the deal.

The president's statement and commutation contradicted Deputy White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's earlier in the (July 2) day response to the court verdict saying "Scooter Libby still has the right to appeal, and therefore the president will continue not to intervene in the judicial process. The president feels terribly for Scooter, his wife and their young children, and all that they're going through." So do Libby's hard right supporters who quickly hailed the commutation as a courageous act while others respecting the law condemned its brazen disrespect for it.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid called Bush's granting clemency "disgraceful (and) Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone." Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy said the "White House....sees itself as being above the law." Valerie Plame's husband Joseph Wilson sharply criticized the president's action stating it "should demonstrate to the American people how corrupt this administration is. By his action, the president has guaranteed that Mr. Libby (and everyone else in the administration) has no incentive to begin telling the truth."

The public's verdict on this matter has yet to be heard. When new polls are published they'll surely agree with Mr. Wilson, outraged Democrats and all people of conscience. There's no doubt Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney cut a deal with Libby for his silence. It's likely to heighten demands for impeaching the president and vice-president based on further "grounds" for doing it. It now remains for a groundswell to build and stiffen congressional leaders' spines enough to get on with what no further delay can be tolerated. Expeditiously removing a lawless president and vice-president from office is the only remaining hope of restoring the rule of law and showing those in contempt of it won't go unpunished as Mr. Libby has.

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

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Reinventing A War Criminal

Reinventing A War Criminal - by Stephen Lendman

Britain's most despised and discredited man ended his 10 year reign June 27 when he stepped down from office transferring his ruling Labor Party's leadership to successor Gordon Brown. He had no choice because of seething public displeasure over his allying with George Bush's illegal wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Most Brits oppose them, yet the vast majority of Labor and Conservative MPs, including new prime minister Gordon Brown, supported them early on, now may have second thoughts, but are constrained by close relations with Washington making them reluctant to back down from what they once disingenuously trumpeted as a noble cause.

That's an open question, however, the London Guardian's Jonathan Steele posed and answered June 29 if Mr. Brown was listening. Steele's message to "The new man in No 10" is "seize the day....break with Bush now....signal a fresh start by taking Britain out of Iraq." Don't bet on it. Steele says Brown is a committed "Atlanticist." He's likely weighing the proper way to begin engaging his US ally. Steele tells him how, pointing to other loyal NATO members as examples. France and Germany sent no forces to Iraq, and Italy, Spain and the Netherlands withdrew theirs. It caused no rupture in relations with Washington for any of them after some name calling at first. Why not Britain now? Steele stresses how refreshing a policy change at "No 10" would be "after the subservient Blair years."

Tony Blair began his tenure May 2, 1997 with a formidable approval rating as high at times as 90% but ended it in the mid-20% range or lower. The same is likely for George Bush already at 26% in the latest Newsweek poll suggesting it's even lower than that. Immediately post-9/11, he was compared to Lincoln, FDR and Churchill combined. It was laughable then and seems ludicrous now for a hated man barely hanging on and trying to avoid what growing numbers in the country demand - his removal from office by impeachment along with Vice-President Cheney.

The feeling of many in Britain is that by allying with George Bush, Mr. Blair left a legacy of "dashed hopes and big disappointments, of so much promised and so little delivered." That's in spite of helping advance the Northern Ireland peace process, begun before he took office, and that leaders in Ireland had lots more to do with than him.

Just hours after standing down, the announcement everyone knew in advance came, surprising no one but angering most. Referring to the so-called Quartet, the BBC reported June 27: "Tony Blair is to become a Middle East envoy working on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU." The London Guardian called him "the Quartet's fifth horseman," an appointment that "beggars belief." In his new capacity, he'll replace former World Bank president James Wolfensohn who resigned last year for lack of progress he never had a chance to achieve in the first place.

Neither will Mr. Blair, nor will he try to, as Alvaro de Soto, former UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and envoy to the Quartet, explained in his leaked End of Mission Report. It noted Wolfensohn was originally to cover the entire peace process, but what emerged for him was a narrowly constricted role. De Soto said he was "highjacked....by US envoys and (Secretary Condoleezza) Rice." As a result, Wolfensohn stepped down from his job in April, 2006 with "a more jaundiced view of Israel (and US) policies than he had upon entering."

Based on his sordid war criminal record post-9/11, Tony Blair won't likely have the qualms that got James Wolfensohn to resign his job. He's taking it to reinvent himself, but that's no more likely than convincing carnivores to become vegetarians. He'll first visit Ramallah in the West Bank, showing up as a Trojan horse fooling no one about what's behind his slick-tongued hypocrisy.

In its effort to obscure more than enlighten, BBC omitted this explanation and could barely go beyond saying Mr. Blair "faces an uphill task to address Palestinian misgivings over his ties to Israel and the US." Left out as well were the reasons why. How can a war criminal reinvent himself as a peace envoy to the region he waged war against and have any credibility or hope of achieving anything. Further, how could he do it when his brief is quite opposite public pronouncements about it.

Under the false mantle of peacemaker, he's Washington's man and the West's envoy to Israel. His job is to continue six decades of ethnic cleansing war and repression against defenseless Palestinians, support open conflict doing it if necessary, ally with an illegitimate quisling Fatah government, and outrageously claim he's there seeking peace.

Tony Blair is a war maker, not a peacemaker. He's a criminal and, like George Bush and Dick Cheney, should be held accountable for his crimes. He willfully partnered with the Bush administration in its wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq and against the occupied people of Palestine. He joined in cutting off essential aid to the Palestinian people and renounced its democratically elected Hamas government without ever giving it a chance to prove itself. He also supported Israel's aggressive wars against Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank, and, in short, partnered in backing war and avoiding peace. He now has a new title in his new job. His mission is the same. He'll bring no peace to the Middle East nor does he intend to.

Blair's appointment sends a clear message to the region. Peace is not on the agenda nor will he help Palestinians get what they want most - an end to 60 years of Israeli repression, discrimination, occupation and colonization; freedom, justice, real peace and security; a sovereign integral independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital; and the guaranteed right affirmed everyone in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country." UN Resolution 194 mandated Palestinians that right in 1948 and reaffirmed it in the General Assembly 130 times with near-universal consensus except for Israel, the US and a Pacific Island state or two pathetically going along at times.

From "No 10" to the Middle East - A Record of Shame

Tony Blair is despised and discredited at home, hated across the world, and the Arab street condemns him. Appointing him peace envoy to the region he warred against is a galling insult to its people, all others of conscience and all humanity. Nonetheless, he has the job and started off on his last day in office June 27 telling his Parliament: "The absolute priority is to try to give effect to what is now the consensus across the international community - that the only way of bringing stability and peace to the Middle East is a two-state solution."

The London Independent's veteran Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk, summed up the feelings of many in his article dated June 23 titled: "How can Blair possibly be given this job?" He began it saying "I suppose that astonishment is not the word for it. Stupefaction comes to mind. I simply could not believe my ears in Beirut (where Fisk is based) when a phone call told me that Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara (where British forces were defeated by the Ottomans in WW I) was going to create 'Palestine.' " Fisk continued calling Blair "vain, deceitful, a proven liar, a trumped up lawyer (with) the blood of thousands of Arab (people) on his hands."

He'll not be welcomed or aided with a brief constricting him within vaguely stated areas of Palestinian governance, economics and security rather than letting him take on the entire range of issues causing the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Unstated is what his real mission is that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert set straight by calling Mr. Blair "A true friend of the State of Israel." Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni added: "Tony Blair is a very well-appreciated figure in Israel," and an official Israeli government statement said Blair "will (be) provide(d) with all necessary assistance in order for him to carry out his duties."

Indeed he will, and it's to support Israeli interests by denying Palestinians theirs. Governance means by the illegitimate Fatah; economics is funding it with weapons and materials against Hamas as well as propping it up financially; and security is by hard line street enforcement and continued conflict aimed at routing the elected government and installing a quisling one over the entire Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).

Tony Blair is the right man for the wrong job and the wrong man for the kind of job he should be sent to do. He has no interest in peace and a long sordid record of contempt for Palestinian rights and justice from his committed one-sided support for Israel. His job is to further the concocted "clash of civilizations" against "heathen Arab terrorists" blaming the victims for crimes he helped commit against them. He feigns helping Palestinians by allying with Fatah's traitorous Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank while continuing to condemn and marginalize the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza.

Abbas conspired with Israel and the US going back to Olso or earlier. He partnered with his western-supported paramilitary warlord muscleman, Mohammed Dahlan, for war on Hamas hoping to unseat it violently but failed. He then brazenly dismissed the legitimate Hamas government June 17, appointing an illegitmate "emergency" quisling one in its place. He's its president and western darling and former World Bank and IMF official Salam Fayyad was made prime minister. Writer and editor Rami Khoury calls it a "government of the imagination." He also said "Appointing....Blair....is something like appointing Emperor Nero to be the chief fireman of Rome," and add to that the notion of having the fox look after the henhouse.

He's mandated to back Fatah in its role as Israel's enforcer and deny Palestinians any chance for freedom, equity and justice. Tony Blair will go to the region in a limited subservient role for Israel and the US. He's to play frontman shoring up support for Abbas, Fayyad, and Dahlan, work against the interests of the legitimate Palestinian government and its people, and leave the heavy lifting undermining efforts to Washington and Jerusalem. He's going in spite of being totally discredited in the region by people who despise him. He did nothing for them nor will he ever, yet this arrogant man claims he's going to bring real peace to the region.

Fisk refers to "His unique blend of ruthlessness and dishonesty." The Arab street understands and despises him for it, but his agenda "go(es) down quite well with our local Arab dictators." Fisk refers to his "slippery use of language....with appeals for restraint on all sides....and moderation" while backing what US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack characterizes as a "well-governed state." That's one with hard line street enforcement and what Fisk calls "lots of (tough) 'terror laws.' "

It's a perfect setup for repressive rule, denying Palestinians all civil and human rights doing it. Blair's the right frontman - from war criminal to street enforcer in the name of peace he has contempt for. The irony is galling. Applied to him, it's "Beyond (the kind of) Chutzpah" Middle East expert Norman Finkelstein wrote about in his book by that title. Watch for him later to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his "efforts." If it gets it, he'll join the ugly ranks of past war criminal honorees like Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Shimon Perez, Yitzhak Rabin, and Kofi Annan in a pathetic weak-kneed supporting role. Mr. Blair will fit right in.

Back Home in London, It's Business As Usual Scaring the Public Twice Over

Episode number one:

On his second day in office, new British prime minister Gordon Brown "was thrust into a new terrorism alert" as the New York Times claimed June 29. London police claimed they found two Mercedes Benz cars "filled with (a significant quantity of) gasoline and nails and a number of gas canisters parked close together in an area known for packed night-clubs and late-night bars," according to the Times. Police also claimed they found and defused an "explosive device" in the area overnight. At once and with no evidence, Al-Queda was named suspect number one, heightened by claims that had these bombs detonated they would have caused great harm. Peter Clark, Britain's most senior counterterrorism police officer, said "there could have been significant injury or loss of life."

So what to do? Round up the usual kinds of suspects and pin it on them, Muslim ones, of course. The New York Times reported July 2 "investigations (were) moving (ahead) at breakneck speed, the police expanded their hunt on Sunday (July 1) for the (London and Glasgow) 'plotters'....the British government called the work of terrorists linked to Al-Queda. Officers raided homes in three cities" bringing the total number apprehended to five (plus three more since). "Police said they had recovered a 'rich trove' of evidence" but presented none beyond claiming earlier to have found gasoline, canisters and nails, hardly the makings of a major terror attack.

Front and center Gordon Brown beginning to earn his bona fides saying "As the police and security services have said on so many occasions, we face a serious and continuous threat to our security. (This incident shows) the need for us to be vigilant at all times and the public to be alert at any potential incidents." Sounding much like George Bush and Tony Blair, he added Britain "will not yield" or be intimidated by a threat from "people who are associated with al-Queda. We will not allow anyone to undermine our British way of life." Counterterrorism expert Sajjan Gohel explained in a telephone interview he didn't think it was "a coincidence (this happened) the day after" Brown took office replacing Tony Blair. A familiar aroma from it is emerging.

Episode number two:

In case the public missed the June 29 event, it was repeated the following day at Glasgow Airport, Scotland. Here's how the New York Times reported it: "British officials raised the country's terrorism threat alert to its highest level on Saturday (June 30) after two men slammed an S.U.V. into entrance doors at Glasgow Airport and turned the vehicle into a potentially lethal fireball" 38 hours after police "uncovered two cars in London 'rigged to explode' with gasoline, gas canisters and nails." For the Times, the claimed presence of these items in the cars constitutes their being "rigged."

Here's the BBC version. Notice the important difference: "Blazing car crashes into airport" it headlined and continued saying "A car which was 'on fire' has been driven at the main terminal building at Glasgow Airport. Eyewitnesses have described a Jeep Cherokee being driven at speed (undefined) towards the building 'with flames coming out' from underneath." The report continued saying "The car didn't actually explode. There were a few pops and bangs which presumably was the (burning) petrol." With no corroborating evidence, the report quoted a "maintenance worker" saying he believed the men "deliberately tried to set the car on fire (and) It looked like they had Molotov cocktails with them."

Little attention was paid to the fact no evidence of them was found, one of the two men in the car was badly burned (a witness claimed by self-dousing with petrol), in obvious pain, required hospitalization, yet both were taken away in handcuffs. They're both now being linked, with no corroborating evidence, to the "rigged to explode" cars found in London.

What do we make of these incidents? Do they sound like terror attacks warranting closing down parts of London and Glasgow Airport as well as heightening security alerts across the UK and US? Did they provide the government emergencies committee Cobra justifiable reason to raise the nation's threat alert to its highest level where it might be put for an impending major terrorist event, invasion or nuclear attack? Or might there be another reason behind it? And is it possible the Glasgow incident was just an unfortunate accident or the work of a disturbed or angry solo perpetrator or two? Also, might normal items like nails, gasoline and canisters found in unattended parked London cars have had nothing to do with mischief? Some suggested answers below.

Since 9/11, Britain, under Tony Blair, chose to partner with the Bush administration's "war on terrorism," leaving aside the question of its legitimacy. Waging that type war or any other requires public support, and what better way to get it than by elevating fear levels with an outside threat made to seem real. Enter Al-Queda and "Enemy Number One" Osama bin Laden. Follow them up with unsubstantiated terror threats or episodes labeled terrorism. Then add color-coded alerts and round-the-clock hyperventilating news coverage with scary headlines at strategic moments like winning public support for repressive legislation, diffusing dissent, re-stoking public angst about terror threats so people don't forget them, and giving a new administration cover to continue the same "war on terrorism" hard line agenda as the previous one.

Isn't the timing of the above British "terror incidents" ironic at least? Don't they raise suspicions by coincidentally occurring on days two and three of the new Gordon Brown administration at a time his predecessor's was hated? Might it also not be important to check the record of past terror scares on both sides of the Atlantic and examine their legitimacy in hindsight? When it's done, threats that headlined for days or longer nearly always turned out to be fakes based on cooked up intelligence or unsubstantiated claims. They continue being used, however, because they work. By the time they're exposed as phony, it's on to the next cooked up plot. Note Exhibit A, B and C below plus an additional Exhibit D:

Exhibit A:

There's no need reconstructing the phony disinformation campaign about WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq war. Case closed on that one.

Exhibit B:

Around Christmas, 2003, Air France got stand down orders based on claimed evidence Al-Queda and Taliban operatives were on Flight 68. It was later exposed as a lie, but it kept Los Angeles International Airport on "maximum deployment" throughout the holiday period and FBI officials working round the clock. The nation was put on "high risk" Code Orange alert, six heavy-traffic Air France flights were cancelled for nothing, and the public was scammed. The scheme was all based on faked intelligence to heighten fear at a strategic moment when the administration felt it was needed.

This happens repeatedly like it did in Exhibit C:

In early June, hyped fake stories made headlines about a plot to blow up JFK Airport's jet fuel tanks and supply lines some outrageous reports claimed would have been "more devastating then 9/11" if it happened. It never did, of course, no crime was committed, but suspects were charged based on conversations between a "source" (identified as an unnamed drugs trafficker) and defendants. It was all faked to heighten fear again, and the "source" was willing to say anything in return for leniency on his pending sentence.

In his 2005 book, "America's War on Terrorism," Michel Chossudovsky explains the notion of a "Universal Adversary." It's being used to prepare the public for a "real life emergency situation" under which no political or social dissent will be tolerated. Other claimed "terrorist" events may be being used as prologue for a much greater one coming at a future time. If it happens, it will trigger a Code Red Alert in the US and something similar in Britain signaling the highest threat level of severe or imminent terrorist or other attack preparing the public for possible imposition of martial law and suspension of the Constitution.

Notice how close Britain is to that now in the wake of two claimed terrorist incidents on June 29 and 30. As stated above, the country was placed on highest level terrorism alert, based on two incidents causing only minor damage from one of them and no substantiation either one was related to terrorism. It's likely, hindsight again will prove neither one was, but the damaging effects of heightened fear by them will have done their job. Gordon Brown is now empowered to be as hard line as his predecessor and will likely have broad support for it in the name of national security. Sound suspicious?

It should surprise no one if one or more similar incidents soon erupt on this side of the Atlantic. The Bush administration needs to reinforce the terror threat at a time popular support for its foreign wars and homeland agenda is waning. What better way to do it than by faking terror threats to heighten fear levels. What easier way is there to win over Congress and get the public to support any homeland measures put in place to "keep us safe."

Exhibit D:

On July 1, ABC News reported a secret "US law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al-Queda is planning a terror 'spectacular' this summer." The source is a "senior (always unnamed US) official." The report indicated a similarity to intelligence warnings in summer, 2001 prior to September 11. It also mentioned warnings of the Glasgow Airport incident never sent to the Scottish government. Odd or by intent?

Do present and past terror scare incidents raise suspicions the public is about to be scammed again but this time end up losing what few precious rights remain? People never realize it until it's too late to matter. Even worse, they never seem able to understand the cost. They better learn because the price for inattention and lack of diligence keeps rising and may soon become too high. Edmund Burke warned us that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Let's hope enough of them in America and the UK got the message.

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

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

Monday, July 02, 2007

Independence Day Hypocrisy

Independence Day Hypocrisy - by Stephen Lendman

Along with Christmas, no federal holiday is more celebrated than the day a new nation declared its independence from the British Crown on July 4, 1776. Coming in the summer with good weather across the country, it's a day or long weekend of parades, outings, various other celebratory events, and baseball at all levels that many years ago often meant major league "double-headers" that was a big occasion for young boys, like this writer, growing up in "big league" cities whose dads took them out for an endless day at the ballpark. It's also a day commemorating the nation's history, liberation and traditions most people don't know or forgot. That's just as well because they were never taught the truths about them, just the acceptable illusions learned in school to the highest levels. They're extolled by the dominant media, most in academia, and by the clergy and others in high places as well who are willing to spread acceptable myths for the status and benefits doing it affords them.

Young people are never taught our real history, only what's falsely portrayed about it with all ugly parts suppressed. It's to program their minds and train a new generation of "good citizens" to believe what serves the privileged best benefits everyone and assure they won't resist to keep it that way. So we're taught to accept the myth of America's exceptionalism, our special nature, goodness, and democratic way of life, in the best of all possible countries with the best of all possible leaders running a government of, for and by the people serving everyone. If only it were true.

We're also taught to commemorate our Founders' glorious achievements and their liberating Revolution from the repressive British Crown and aristocracy. They replaced it with an experimental system of government never tried before in the West outside its imperfect earlier form in ancient Athens for a few decades only. After the war of independence, the Founders met in 1787, in the same Philadelphia State House where the Declaration of Independence was signed 11 years earlier. They came to frame a Constitution they hoped would last into "remote futurity" - for their interests alone.

Yet, they managed to include unimaginable freedoms in it as well, including real democratic ones in the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791. It gave people the rights of free expression, religion, peaceable assembly, protection from illegal searches and seizures, due process and more. We still have them, but, in the age of George Bush, they hang by a thread and can be revoked by a "unitary" executive authority in the name of national security if he says so.

Noted political scientist and social critic Michael Parenti wrote of our Founder's achievement in the 8th and earlier editions of his important book, "Democracy for the Few." In it, he states "the Constitution was consciously designed as a conservative document" with provisions in it, or omitted by intent, to "resist the pressure of popular tides" and protect "a rising bourgeoisie('s)" freedom to "invest, speculate, trade, and accumulate wealth" the way things work for capital interests today. It was to codify in law what politician, founding father, jurist and nation's first Chief Supreme Court justice, John Jay, said the way things should be - that "The people who own the country ought to run it (for their benefit alone)."

Benjamin Franklin was reportedly asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention whether the 55 attending delegates created a monarchy or republic. He responded "A republic, if you can keep it" without acknowledging notions of an egalitarian nation were stillborn at its birth. It was true then and now in spite of all the pretense contrived to portray an idealized society, in fact, always out of reach for most in it. Republican America was created as a nominal democracy Adam Smith said should be "instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor."

The nation's founders achieved mightily handing down their legacy to succeeding generations of leaders always mindful of who gave them power and who they were there to serve. At the nation's birth, only adult white male property owners could vote; blacks were commodities, not people; and women were childbearing and homemaking appendages of their husbands.

Religious prerequisites existed until 1810, and all adult white males couldn't vote until property and tax requirements were dropped in 1850. States elected senators until the 17th amendment in 1913 gave citizen voters that right, and Native Americans had no franchise in their own land until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act gave them back what no one had the right to take away in the first place. Women's suffrage wasn't achieved until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920 after nearly 100 years of struggling for it.

The 1865 13th Amendment freed black slaves, the 1870 15th Amendment gave them the right to vote, but it wasn't until passage of the landmark Civil and Voting Rights Acts in the mid-1960s, abolishing Southern Jim Crow laws, that blacks could vote, in fact, like the Constitution said they could decades earlier. Today those rights are gravely weakened for all through unfair laws still in force and a nation growing more repressive and less responsive to the needs of ordinary working people and the nation's least advantaged. The limited high-water mark of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society has steadily eroded since in loss of civil liberties and essential social benefits. It's hardly a reason for those harmed and people of conscience to celebrate July 4 or any other day commemorating a nation unresponsive to them and most others.

The nation's Native Indians have the least to celebrate. Few once remained of the 100 million or so throughout the Americas and around 18 million in our America. Long before the nation was liberated from the British Crown, white settlers began slaughtering them mercilessly. Our Native peoples lived peacefully on these lands for thousands of years. They developed proud cultures "Western civilization" began eroding when it arrived.

When the first European settlers came in the late 15th century, Native peoples helped them adjust to a hostile unfamiliar new land. They weren't repaid kindly in our great push West and South that exterminated millions of them given no rights or quarter in our grand "democratic" experiment excluding them. Survivors today enjoy few freedoms only gotten grudgingly, and most suffer severe repression and deprivation in a land they once thrived on.

Today, our original inhabitants live in more desperate poverty and despair than any others in the nation. Their needs are shamelessly unaddressed and virtually ignored. No day honors them for what they sacrificed for the privileged few to enjoy alone. For them, justice long delayed is justice never gotten.

They have no reason to commemorate the nation's founding that cost them their rights and destroyed their proud heritage, culture and lives. Today, their traditions aren't taught in schools and are unknown by the public. They're ignored by the dominant media that mocks and demonizes them in films and society as drunks, beasts, primitives and savages, noble or otherwise. Their legacy is one of made and broken treaties, stolen lands, rights denied, welfare ignored and lives taken for 500 years. They're still repressed and denied in a shameful attempt to "Americanize" them against their will and destroy their proud cultures doing it.

Many others in the nation have no reason to celebrate either on this or any other day. It's truer than ever in an age of extreme greed, unprecedented wealth disparity, loss of civil liberties and essential social services, a state of permanent imperial wars of aggression, galling corruption, and virtual abandonment of the rule of law by a government complicit in all its branches serving the privileged alone. Through lies, deceit and imperial arrogance, they created conditions hostile to the rights of ordinary people everywhere.

They ignore the needs of millions in the country enjoying few of the fruits available to a shrinking number of people in the "land of opportunity" offering less of it to growing numbers in it. Today tens of millions of poor and deprived, especially those of color, are practically condemned as criminals for their disadvantaged state. Through no fault of their own, they're ignored by a heartless state worshiping wealth and privilege at the expense of those having little or none.

Newly arrived immigrants have little to celebrate either, especially the undocumented and exploited forced here by repressive trade agreements like NAFTA and DR-CAFTA. They destroyed their livelihoods at home enriching corporate giants at the expense of working people where they're in force. Their choice was stay at home and perish or risk coming north to survive in a hostile unwelcoming climate uncaring of their plight and exploiting and persecuting the ones getting here and able to stay.

Muslims as well have little to celebrate, including citizens whose rights are nominally protected by the laws of the land. Instead, their government defiles Islam in the age of George Bush calling its believers "militants," "terrorists" and "Islamofascists" threatening the nation's security because the president says so. Thousands have been illegally hounded in witch-hunt roundups since 9/11, held in secret detention, unjustly deported, and given no rights including due process to clear their names. Their "crime" is their faith and color in a nation nominally guaranteeing all its people can worship freely. That right's now voided for those of the wrong faith. They're demonized, unwanted, condemned and persecuted in "the land of the free" but not for them. Shame on the nation that strayed from its founding principles, never granted to all, still only afforded a chosen few, and now denied anyone designated an enemy of the state even if they aren't one.

Finally, African Americans have little to celebrate this independence day that gave them none at all at first, precious little thereafter, and still treats them as second class citizens at best. They were first commodified and sold into bondage as human property. Their worth and status were then degraded in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. That was the infamous "three-fifths clause" euphemistically referring to slaves as less than people (and Indians as non-people) that remained the law of the land until voided by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

Black Americans are now nominally free, but along with Native Americans suffer the highest rates of poverty, deprivation, and incarceration and get the least amount of government aid for essential social services. That includes decent affordable health care, education and housing and enough food to eat for the poorest and most deprived with single mothers with children most harmed.

This July 4, at holiday outings, picnics, barbecues, ballgames, outdoor concerts, parades, fireworks displays, visits to the shore on vacation, and other celebratory events, remember the growing millions of victimized and deprived Americans in need. The state ignores them, denies them, even condemns them for their plight. Those most desperate are helped the least so the most privileged and well-off can be advantaged the most. As we give thanks and count our blessings this and every day, think of the poor and desperate who have few or none of what we take for granted. Remember, but for the grace of the Almighty, their plight could be ours.

Finally, remember as well on our "day of independence" the many tens of millions worldwide we deprived of theirs. Included are the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and every nation living under US-imposed neoliberal unfair free-market rules exploiting the many for the interests of a privileged few. Those harmed range from the southern tip of Chile to the vastness of Africa to the Asian continent and throughout Europe, most notably in the East once under Soviet control. People everywhere pay for our nation putting wealth and power interests above basic humanity.

On this "independence day" and all others, think of them and our own deprived millions at home. Then imagine a future time free of that condition because enough people mobilized to change things bettering everyone. That would be something worth giving thanks for and celebrating.

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

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