Thursday, February 24, 2011


When the CIA topple Sukarno in 1965 they gave the Indonesian military a list of people to be dealt with.

Up to one million people were then murdered.

CIA Support of Death Squads

It could happen in North Africa.

Watch out people of Libya....

The USA bombs innocent civilians.....examples abound..., latest is the War on Lebanon in summer of 2006.... and Gaza in 2008....

On 18 November 2010, there was an article entitled "Democracy promotion: America's new regime change formula" at RT

Among the points made:

1. In previous decades, CIA coups involved CIA death squads, CIA torture chambers and CIA massacres.

2. More recently, the CIA has worked harder at disguising its murderous coup activities.

3. Lawrence Wilkerson, formerly Chief of Staff to Colin Powell said, "We do this through surrogates and nongovernmental organization and through people who are less suspecting of the evil that may lurk behind their actions than perhaps they were before...

"Is it still just as heinous as it has always been? You bet!"

Libya: The Rest of the Story

To topple regimes, the CIA uses such organizations as the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).....and other ONGs..., as well as Saatchi$Saatchi tactics for publicizing "Group Think..."....etc,

5. Ron Paul wrote "It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections 'promoting democracy.'

"How would we Americans feel if for example the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China?"

6. According to Dr. William Robinson, author of Promoting Polyarhcy, "all sectors of civil society will be identified and those that can be brought on board to the US interventionist project will be brought on board and funded."

Website for this image

7. According to William Blum, author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since WW II: "The one in Serbia ... they borrowed things from that revolution.

"Certain slogans, symbols and colors, and they use it again and again."

The CIA makes use of youth groups, rock bands and laser shows.

Student leaders of the Serbian youth group Otpor, who played a key role in the 2000 ousting of Slobodan Milosevic, met 7 to 10 times with officials from USAID affiliates, according to the NY Times.

The same group also received several hundred thousand dollars for demonstration material, t-shirts and stickers.

8. According to Blum "Venezuela is the place where they send the most money. Chavez is enemy number one."

In Venezuela, Maria Corina Machado rose to fame with an NGO known as Sumate, an organization that received hundreds of thousands of dollars from USAID and NED.

Sumate led fierce campaigns against democratically elected President Chavez.

Since 2000, USAID has activated more than 620 programs in Venezuela alone, costing up to $20 million dollars.


9. Blum says, "to understand US foreign policy, one must understand a very basic fact; the US government wants to dominate the world."

10. The United States has spent over $18 million on 'democracy promotion' in Honduras.

Meanwhile, journalists and activists are being brutalized and killed under the U.S. backed government.

11. Other countries the US has intervened in include the Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador, Kyrgyzstan, and the Palestinian territories.

The USAID has implemented so called democracy promotion initiatives in over 100 countries in the past 25 years.

12. According to Blum: "We have a very clear law on the books prohibiting foreign governments from interfering in our elections of supporting any candidates with money.

"So we do exactly abroad what we prohibit here at home."

On 4 May 1970, at Ohio's Kent State University, US forces murdered 4 students. The students had been protesting about US forces carrying out the mass murder of civilians in Cambodia.

Reportedly, General Petraeus has said that the Afghans may have been burning their own children.

The USA, like Israel, commits mass murder and then, like Israel, blames the victims.

Gen. David H. Petraeus: Afghans burned their own children.

Around 16 February 2011, in Konar province in Afghanistan, the US military killed 22 women and more than 30 children.

According to the Washington Post, on 21 February 2011,

"To the shock of President Hamid Karzai's aides, Gen. David H. Petraeus suggested ... that Afghans caught up in a coalition attack in northeastern Afghanistan might have burned their own children to exaggerate claims of civilian casualties, according to two participants at the meeting."

Murdered by US troops at Mai Lai

Reportedly, "Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, dismissed allegations by Karzai's office and the provincial governor that civilians were killed and said residents had invented stories, or even injured their children, to pin the blame on U.S. forces..."

"On Saturday, Wahidi, the provincial governor, sent a three-person fact-finding team up the valley to the village of Helgal.

"They returned with ... five boys and girls 16 or younger.

"... they had burns and shrapnel wounds..."

Murdered by the USA.

Sunday, February 20, 2011


Hannah Tan from Penang.

Malaysia is mainly Moslem.

And it is a wildly successful country, with good schools, good hospitals, and a standard of living way above that of most of its Asian neighbors.

The economy has been growing at around 7%.

So, like Tunisia, LIBYA and Egypt it is likely to be attacked by the CIA-Mossad people.

On 10 February 2011, we read of Anti-Mubarak protests by stupid guys in Malaysia l

In Malaysia, CIA-controlled Islamists and CIA-controlled pro-democracy activists have been expressing their support for the CIA coup in Egypt.

On 4 February 2011 a large demonstration took place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

More than 3000 demonstrators took to the streets after performing their Friday prayers.

The crowds marched to the US embassy.

A memorandum was handed over to American Embassy officials.

This memorandum supports the idea of toppling Mubarak, who brought peace and prosperity to Egypt.

Many of the organisers of the demonstration came from the opposition parties such as Anwar Ibrahim’s People’s Justice Party (PKR).

Anwar Ibrahim is reported to be an agent of the CIA.

The Islamists of the PAS political party have shown their support for the CIA-controlled anti-Mubarak forces.

There are apparently CIA-Mossad guys within the Malaysian government.

Malaysia (June 24, 2009) Rear Adm. Nora W. Tyson, Commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific, greets boys at Seberan Tayor Primary School.

In 2007, the Malaysian government decided to ban non-Muslims from using the word 'Allah' in their literature.

At the end of 2009, a High Court judge ruled that Christians 'have a constitutional right to use Allah''.

The word 'Allah' is the word used by Christians in Malta, Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere to describe God.

Malaysia's main ruling party, and the main opposition party, are competing for the Malay-Muslim vote.

At the same time, the ruling party, and the opposition, do not want to lose the support of the non-Muslims.

The Census in 2000 showed that 60.4% of the total population of Malaysia are Muslims.[1]

But many Malaysian Moslems are infrequent visitors to mosques and very few vote for Moslem parties.

On 8 January 2010, it was reported that four Christian churches in Malaysia have been attacked.

A witness saw four people on two motorcycles breaking the glass front of a church and throwing an incendiary object inside before fleeing. (Malaysian churches attacked)

Malaysia's former prime minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, said that Jews rule the world by "proxy" (Mahathir attack on Jews - Oct. 16, 2003 )

Are Mossad, and the CIA, trying a policy of divide and rule?

Malaysia is a moderate, mainly secular country with a relatively successful economy.

In elections, the Islamic parties usually perform badly and a secular party, the National Front, wins most of the votes.

Malaysia has criticised the war policies of the Pentagon and Israel.

The Pentagon and Israel do not favour moderate, secular Moslem countries because they do not obey the dictates of the Pentagon and Israel.

The Pentagon and Israel prefer countries like Saudi Arabia which are easy to control.

Are Mossad and the CIA trying to wreck Malaysia?

Mossad and the CIA would appear to have a presence in Malaysia.

1. The Malaysian Police (PDRM) have been computerising their operations, with the help of Israelis.

A firm called Asiasoft is involved. (Israel behind information management and security system )

The directors of Asiasoft Global Pte Ltd are a Singaporean, an Israeli called Izhak David Nakar and an Israeli called Ido Schechter.

The shareholders are the Singaporean and an Israeli company called Top Image System Limited.

Nakar is a recipient of the “Israel Defense Award,”

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and his friend former U.S. Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen.

2. In 2000, Malaysian politician Lim Kit Siang called on Prime Minister Mahathir to declare the outcome of three years of police investigations as to whether opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is a CIA agent and to state whether the United States is the country he meant in a Merdeka Day message as the country out to 'recolonize' Malaysia. (Sodomy, Anwar, CIA)

3. In the year 2000, a high level planning meeting of 'Al Qaeda' took place in an apartment building in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. (Cached )

The Malaysian secret police, working on behalf of the CIA, placed the meeting under surveillance.

4. History Commons (Complete 911 Timeline: Hambali) tells us about the Indonesian known as Hambali, who was said to be in charge of Southeast Asian operations for Osama bin Laden and the CIA.

Hambali is believed to have worked for the CIA in Afghanistan.

From 1991 to 2000 Hambali lived in the village of Sungei Manggis, close to Kuala Lumpur, in Malaysia.Hambali’s landlord said of Hambali’s visitors, “Some looked ... white.”

5. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, former CNN reporter, Maria Ressa, quoted unnamed Indian intelligence sources as saying that one of the gunmen had said that the terrorists carried Malaysian identity cards. (Cached )

6. The Youth Chief of Malaysia's opposition party, PAS, claimed in 2004 that 'the bombings in Bali and Jakarta were perpetrated by the CIA to discredit Muslims and that captured JI and al-Qaeda leader Hambali was also on the CIA payroll.

After all, the PAS youth leader observed, "These kind of sophisticated bombs could only be bought by the U.S."' (

7. Malaysia's former leader Mr Mahathir told a human rights' conference on 9 September 2005 that the UK and US were "state terrorists". (,3604,1566648,00.html)

Friday, February 18, 2011

Next Revolutionary stop: The Crypto-Zionist House of Saud...

Next Revolutionary stop-over: The Crypto-Zionist House of Saud...
By Pepe Escobar

Here's a crash course on how one of "our" - monarchic - dictators treats his own people during the great 2011 Arab revolt....soon to arrive to Damascus too....

The king of Bahrain, Hamad al-Khalifa, has blood on his hands after his mercenary security forces - Pakistani, Indian, Syrian and Jordanian - with no previous warning, attacked sleeping, peaceful protesters at 3 am on Thursday at the Pearl roundabout, the tiny Gulf country's version of Cairo's Tahrir Square.

In the brutal crackdown, at least five people have been killed - including a young child - and 2,000 injured, some by gunshots, two of these in critical condition. Riot police targeted doctors and medics and prevented ambulances and blood donors from reaching the Pearl roundabout. A doctor at Salmaniya hospital told al-Jazeera there was a refrigerated truck outside the hospital, which he fears the army has used to remove more dead bodies.

The resourceful Maryama Alkawaka of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights was there; "It was very violent, [the police] were not showing any mercy." An avalanche of tweets from Bahrainis denounced an "Israeli-style" sneak attack and shoot-to-kill approach. And many have denounced al-Jazeera for not having kept a live satellite link as it had in Cairo, and for implying that this was only a Shi'ite protest. The Pearl roundabout is now surrounded by nearly 100 tanks at every entrance and exit. Downtown Manama has been turned into a ghost city.

The Shi'ite opposition described it as "real terrorism". Reem Khalifa, senor editor at the opposition newspaper al-Wasat, said, "The regime forces just came and massacred a crowd of people as they slept." They had been "chanting together, shouting 'neither Sunni nor Shi'ite but Bahraini'. We have not seen this before. And this is what annoyed the government agents the most - they are always trying to divide the people ... And now the regime is spreading lies about me and other journalists who are trying to say what is happening."

Khalifa had the courage to stand up and harshly confront Bahrain's foreign minister at a press conference, totally debunking his version of events (he called the deaths "regrettable" but insisted protesters were sectarian, and armed).

The Gulf Cooperation Council - the scandalously wealthy club of local kingdoms which holds over US$1 trillion stashed away in foreign reserves and almost 50% of the world's proven oil reserves still underground - issued, what else, a bland statement supporting Bahrain.

Kill them, but with a velvet glove
Is Washington remotely outraged by all this? The record speaks for itself. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed "deep concern", according to the State Department, and "urged restraint". The Pentagon said Bahrain was "an important partner"; later Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called Bahrain's Crown Prince Salman - certainly to make sure everything was dandy with the US Navy's 5th Fleet and its 2,250 personnel housed in an isolated compound inside 24 hectares in the center of Manama.

Even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge that US President Barack Obama had "yet to issue the blunt public criticism of Bahrain's rulers that he eventually leveled against President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt - or that he has repeatedly aimed at the mullahs in Iran". But he can't; after all, Bahrain's I-shot-my-people king is another usual suspect, a "pillar of the American security architecture in the Middle East", and "a staunch ally of Washington in its showdown with Iran's Shi'ite theocracy".

Under these strategic circumstances, it's hard to dismiss Lebanese political scientist and blogger at the Angry Arab website As'ad AbuKhalil, when he stresses, "The US had to plot the repression of Bahrain to appease Saudi Arabia and other Arab tyrants who were mad at Obama for not defending Mubarak to the every end."

Incidentally, Saudi Arabia's prince Talal Bin Abdulaziz - father of the billionaire darling of the West prince Al Waleed bin Talal - told the BBC there's a danger the protests in Bahrain could spill into Saudi Arabia.

It's never enough to stress Bahrain is all about Iran vs Saudi Arabia (see
All about the Pearl roundabout Asia Times Online, February 18).

The US naval base in Manama translates as a cop on the (Persian Gulf) beat. Moreover, 15% of Saudi Arabia's population is Shi'ite, living in the eastern provinces, where the oil is. That makes it very hard for Bahrainis - Shi'ite and even Sunni - to threaten the ruling, Sunni, al-Khalifa dynasty, as the House of Saud will immediately rush in with all sorts of logistical and military support.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia has huge leverage over Bahrain's oil, which comes from the shared Abu Saafa oilfield, explored by Saudi Aramco and shared with a Bahraini refiner.

Bahrain is far from swimming in oil. According to International Monetary Fund figures, in 2010 Saudi Arabia produced roughly 8.5 million barrels of oil a day; the United Arab Emirates 2.4 million barrels; Kuwait 2.3 million barrels; and Bahrain only 200,000 barrels.

According to Moody's, to balance its budget the Bahrain government needs oil at $80 a barrel, "one of the highest budgetary ‘break-even' points in the region", says the Financial Times. As a Barclays Capital report puts it with typical corporate contortionism, "The announcements of street protests, concessions by the government at the cost of a deteriorating fiscal position and simmering political tensions have created a backdrop that has clearly caused investors to view Bahrain with increased caution."

So if protesters really want to hit the al-Khalifa where it hurts, they should aim at the nexus oil business/financial sector. It will be an extraordinary uphill struggle against a nasty police state crammed with mercenaries - especially Jordanian military consultants (the "master torturer" of the Mukhabarat is a Jordanian) and now also counting on "help" from Saudi tanks and troops. Moreover, the riot police and special forces don't speak the local dialect, and in the case of Balochis from Pakistan, don't even speak Arabic.

Prospects are bleak. The inside dope in Manama is of a split within the royal family. The dreaded, sectarian Khalid bin Ahmed, responsible for the policy of naturalizing "imported" Sunnis to alter the demographic balance and dilute even more the voting rights of the indigenous Shi'ite population, would be on one side; and the king plus Crown Prince Salman (Gates' pal) would be on the other. The king may be losing control. And in this case Saudi Arabia would be lobbying for bin Ahmed to take over and get one of the king's sons, Nasir Bin Hamed to be crown prince. This does make sense if seen under the angle of the brutal crackdown.

Time to cross the bridge
What Bahrain's Shi'ites can certainly accomplish is to inspire Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia in terms of a long fight for greater social, economic and religious equality. It's wishful thinking to bet on the House of Saud reforming itself - not while enjoying extraordinary oil wealth and maintaining a vast repression apparatus, more than enough to buy or intimidate any form of dissent.

Yet there may be reasons to dream of Saudi Arabia following the winds of new Egypt. The average age of the House of Saud trio of ruling princes is 83. Of the country's indigenous population of 18.5 million, 47% is under 18. A medieval conception of Islam, as well as overwhelming corruption, is under increasing vigilance on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

The middle class is shrinking. 40% of the population actually lives under the seal of poverty, has access to virtually no education, and is in fact unemployable (90% of all employees are "imported" Sunnis). Even crossing the causeway to Manama is enough to give people ideas.

Once again, talk about an extraordinary uphill struggle - in a country with no political parties - or labor unions, or student organizations; with any sort of protests and strikes outlawed; and with members of the shura council appointed by the king.

The Arab News newspaper anyway has already warned that those winds of freedom from northern Africa may hit Saudi Arabia. And it may all revolve around youth unemployment, at an unsustainable 40%. There's no question; the great 2011 Arab revolt will only fulfill its historic mission when it shakes the foundations of the House of Saud. Young Saudi Sunnis and Shi'ites, you have nothing to lose but your fear.....
Bahrain and terrified GCC leaders.... answered the Shi'ite majority's calls for constitutional change and fair elections with tear gas, rubber bullets and death as police cleared the well-organized protest camp at the Pearl roundabout in Manama. The crackdown at "martyr's square" is bound to add charge to an explosive mix in which two-thirds of the population are denied rights enjoyed by the ruling Sunni minority.....
Deadly riots in Sulaimaniya after a rally spurred by the Middle East uprisings got out of hand have rocked the relatively prosperous, stable and democratic autonomous zone of Iraqi Kurdistan. While ruling parties say the opposition has seized on regional unrest to provoke a coup, the anger just as likely erupted due to rising social injustice and corruption......
A cunning plan ...
By Chan Akya

"I have a cunning plan to stop us from going over the top" - Baldrick
"Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of here by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman around here?" - Black Adder
From the last episode of the British comedy series, Black Adder Goes Forth

So let's do a raincheck shall we? The world's stock markets are on a gallop as they greet the Chinese Year of the Rabbit (or was it hare as in hare-brained?) with an assault on new trading levels that would make the mythical creature in Aesop's fable proud as it sought to beat the slow, gnawing thing called reality (okay, actually a tortoise).

Stocks are ignoring a bunch of things:
1. Stimulus efforts that are pushing up demand for food ...
2. ... which is driving inflation higher in emerging markets, causing
3. ... riots in many Arab capitals that are ...
4. ... pushing up oil prices, which in turn are ...
5. ... driving bond yields higher and making central bankers nervous,
6. ... which is forcing governments to cut their budget deficits;
7. ... that will help to increase defaults in US municipal bonds and European government bonds,
8. ... all of which will make today's hopes of a recovery a chimera at best.

Anyone possessed of a logical mind could have seen those eight steps above and surmised that now wasn't a good time to be buying, say Facebook at US$50 billion, buying a meaningless blog aggregation website for $315 million or indeed a bank stock at 1.2x book value. That logical person would of course be completely wrong because all these things are happening around us as we speak.

In an effort to undertake some serious journalism rather than my usual brand of armchair commentary-ism, I attempted to learn the secrets of these wonderful market investors by talking to a few of them. The net result of these conversations was a lot of empty beer bottles, a big hangover the next morning and absolutely (and I mean absolutely almost in the scientific sense of the word) no clue as to why people were still bullish the stock markets.

Then it all came to me. Let us consider the problem from a different perspective, namely what is the secret solution that could possibly explain the market's confidence - however unlikely or even fantastic that it may be?

Here is what I think the market would like to see: a solution that encompasses the messy situation in the Middle East, the debt problem in Europe, inflation across the world and the unemployment issue in America.

Perhaps there is a version of Baldrick's cunning plan that goes into effect as follows (and stay with me here):
1. Arab potentates across the Middle East decamp with their money to Europe. No scratch that: they just decamp to Europe where their money already is hidden in various money laundering havens.
2. As a condition for tolerating the presence of these geriatric autocrats and their forbiddingly fundamentalist entourage, European governments require them to purchase a bunch of assets - nothing dangerous you understand, just a bunch of European government bonds selected at "random"; so let's say Ireland, Greece, Portugal shall we. "Would the emir like some Spain with that?"
3. A wholesale departure of rulers from the Middle East of course pushes up oil prices dramatically, so America immediately enlists a million unemployed folks and flies them down to man the oil pipelines from refineries like Al-Khobar to the nearest ports. Whatever happens to the rest of these countries is of course no one's specific concern.
4. The Arab masses in places like Libya, Syria, Jordan etc all decide that with their rulers gone far away, there isn't much point to protesting and so go back to lounging around street corners.

And so the headlines all improve:
A. Stability in the Middle East
B. European debt crisis is over
C. America shows strong jobs growth
D. Oil prices fall

Or something like that. LOL....
Events in Egypt - the whole "ecstatic youth calling for freedom in a big square" deal - have given the Chinese government plenty of heartburn.

Instead of revolution and democracy, Chinese official reportage has emphasized the dangers of chaos and instability.

However, Egypt is primarily Obama's and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's headache.

Within China, it is undoubtedly being argued that the Mubarak government was too deferential to the democratic desires of the Obama administration.

In what he would no doubt confess was not his best work, Prime Minister Shafiq yielded to the mediation of one of Egypt - and the world's - richest men, Davos fixture and telecom tycoon Naguib Sawiris, and released Google's Wael Ghonim from custody. Ghonim promptly gave an inspiring interview to Dream TV, then electrified the flagging crowd in Tahrir Square. In a couple days, Mubarak was history.

It can be assumed that the isolated release of this one dissident - who also did not undergo the brutal treatment meted out to less fortunate dissidents while in custody - can be attributed to the discretely expressed desires of the United States and Google as conveyed to the Egyptian government both directly and through Sawiris.

Egypt's military was also compromised by its dependence on US military aid and continual hearts-and-mind efforts of the US to divide its loyalties during high-level military exchanges (which were going on in the United States as the situation in Cairo exploded). In the end, the Egyptian military declined to obey Hosni Mubarak, instead choosing a path that pleased the United States - and led to a military junta ruling Egypt.

To some extent, China can regard the outcome of the US Internet freedom agenda in Egypt with some complacency as a case - in Chinese parlance - of an "enemy picking up a stone to throw but dropping it on his own foot".

For China, the acid test for US Internet freedom strategy - or lack of it - will be Iran.

If Iran is able to avoid contagion and tamp down the widespread discontent that has coalesced around opposition political leaders for several months, Beijing will probably draw the conclusion that it was the Mubarak government's pro-American authoritarianism, not authoritarianism per se, that doomed the regime.

If, on the other hand, Iran finds itself in serious difficulty, then China must look anxiously at its own parallels with Egypt: smoldering resentment at economic injustice and corruption; a do-nothing military that has kept to barracks for decades while preening at its role as the people's protector; and a business class that has enriched itself through the regime but has limited loyalty to it - and wonder if networked outrage at some incident will trigger an 18-day explosion that will bring down a regime that has survived for over 60 years.

Heightened Chinese awareness could conceivably lead to a more nuanced approach to managing the Internet. China has the doctrine, the tools, and the money to do it.

It would make for an interesting state of affairs if China decided that the social, diplomatic, and financial costs and political risks of maintaining the Great Firewall in its current, draconian form were unacceptable and decided it could manage dissent with the same combination of direct and indirect tools used in the West.

However, the US government has taken the provocative step of defining Internet connectivity as a "freedom", which in China will probably be regarded as nothing more than a self-serving and hypocritical step to repackage an American interest - and a violation of Chinese sovereignty - as a universal value that China is supposed to be obligated to adopt.

It looks like finger-wagging and belligerence will be the order of the day in Sino-US exchanges on Internet policy.

Given the welter of conflicting, contradictory, and complementary interests in play, maybe that's not a good thing.

Mozorov concludes:
China and Iran ... want to keep tight control over the Internet, not only because they fear that their citizens might find out the real state of affairs in their country, but also because they believe that the Internet is the America's favorite tool of starting antigovernment rebellions ...

... the very concept of Internet freedom, much like the war on terror before it, leads to intellectual mush in the heads of its promoters and excessive paranoia in the heads of their adversaries. This is hardly the kind of change that American foreign policy needs...
Instead of simply liberalizing its Internet and managing it more intensively through indirect tools, it appears more likely that China will give at least equal attention to counter-measures: intensifying its efforts to monitor dissidents using the web, giving disproportionate weight to developing its own Internet software tools, taking more aggressive measures to control and compromise the flow of information through the Chinese Internet, looking at asymmetric retaliatory cyber-war measures ... and wooing authoritarian regimes that now consider the United States an excessively high-minded and simple-minded friend in its advocacy of "freedom to connect".

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

America Might Be a More Gilded Cage than Egypt ... But It Is Still a Cage

The barbaric false flag attack in USA, the inside job of 9/11....

As the New York Times' Lede wrote yesterday:

Here is an excerpt from "Why It Is Wrong to Believe a Word Mubarak said," one Egyptian activist's detailed response to President Hosni Mubarak's speech on Tuesday:

What has Mubarak left out in his speech:

1. Emergency law is still effective, which means oppression, brutality, arrests, and torture will continue. How can you have any hope for fair democratic elections under emergency law where the police have absolute power?

America is obviously very different from Egypt... Or is it?

Let's honestly compare and contrast the situation in the United States....

State of Emergency
The United States has been in a declared state of emergency from September 2001, to the present. Specifically, on September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001:
A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 . . . .
That declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from the most barbaric false flag attack in USA, the inside job of 9/11 to the present.... President Bush kept it in place, and President Obama has also.

For example, on September 10, 2009, President Obama
issued his continuation of the declaration of national emergency:
Notice of President of the United States, dated Sept. 10, 2009, 74 F.R. 46883, provided:

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2009. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency the former President declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
Barack Obama.
An on September 10, 2010, President Obama declared:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year.

The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2010, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.

The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001:

Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law.

Is the Times correct? Well, it is clear that pre-9/11 declarations of national emergency have authorized martial law. For example, as summarized by a former fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation, and the recipient of numerous awards, including the Gary Schlarbaum Award for Lifetime Defense of Liberty, Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and Templeton Honor Rolls Award on Education in a Free Society:

In 1973, the Senate created a Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency (subsequently redesignated the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers) to investigate the matter and to propose reforms. Ascertaining the continued existence of four presidential declarations of national emergency, the Special Committee (U.S. Senate 1973, p. iii) reported:

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. . . . taken together, [they] confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communications; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.
(Most or all of the emergency powers referred to by the above-quoted 1973 Senate report were revoked in the late 1970's by 50 U.S.C. Section 1601. However, presidents have made numerous declarations of emergency since then, and the declarations made by President Bush in September 2001 are still in effect).

It is also clear that the White House has kept substantial information concerning its presidential proclamations and directives hidden from Congress. For example,
according to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy:
Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the [George W.] Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress.
Continuity of Government

Continuity of Government ("COG") measures were implemented on 9/11. For example, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, at page 38:
At 9:59, an Air Force lieutenant colonel working in the White House Military Office joined the conference and stated he had just talked to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The White House requested (1) the implementation of continuity of government measures, (2) fighter escorts for Air Force One, and (3) a fighter combat air patrol over Washington, D.C.
Likewise, page 326 of the Report states:
The secretary of defense directed the nation's armed forces to Defense Condition 3, an increased state of military readiness. For the first time in history, all nonemergency civilian aircraft in the United States were grounded, stranding tens of thousands of passengers across the country. Contingency plans for the continuity of government and the evacuation of leaders had been implemented.
The Washington Post notes that Vice President Richard Cheney initiated the COG plan on 9/11:
From the bunker, Cheney officially implemented the emergency continuity of government orders . . . .
See also footnotes cited therein and this webpage.

reported that - 6 months later - the plans were still in place:
Because Bush has decided to leave the operation in place, agencies including the White House and top civilian Cabinet departments have rotated personnel involved, and are discussing ways to staff such a contingency operation under the assumption it will be in place indefinitely, this official said.
Similarly, the Washington Post reported in March 2002 that "the shadow government has evolved into an indefinite precaution." The same article goes on to state:
Assessment of terrorist risks persuaded the White House to remake the program as a permanent feature of 'the new reality, based on what the threat looks like,' a senior decisionmaker said.
As CBS pointed out, virtually none of the Congressional leadership knew that the COG had been implemented or was still in existence as of March 2002:
Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had established a “shadow government,” moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.

Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.

An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.

Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.

Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Similarly, the above-cited CNN article states:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said Friday he can't say much about the plan.

"We have not been informed at all about the role of the shadow government or its whereabouts or what particular responsibilities they have and when they would kick in, but we look forward to work with the administration to get additional information on that."

Indeed, the White House has specifically refused to share information about Continuity of Government plans with the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress, even though that Committee has proper security clearance to hear the full details of all COG plans.

Specifically, in the summer 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, on the Homeland Security Committee (and so with proper security access to be briefed on COG issues), inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans by the White House (video; or here is the transcript). The Homeland Security Committee has full clearance to view all information about COG plans. DeFazio concluded: "Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.

As University of California Berkeley Professor Emeritus
Peter Dale Scott warned:

If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.

To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority.

Indeed, continuity of government plans are specifically defined to do the following:
  • Top leaders of the “new government” called for in the COG would entirely or largely go into hiding, and would govern in hidden locations
  • Those within the new government would know what was going on. But those in the “old government” – that is, the one created by the framers of the Constitution – would not necessarily know the details of what was happening
  • Normal laws and legal processes might largely be suspended, or superseded by secretive judicial forums
  • The media might be ordered by strict laws – punishable by treason – to only promote stories authorized by the new government
See this, this and this.

Could the White House have maintained COG operations to the present day?

I don't know, but the following section from the above-cited CNN article is not very reassuring:

Bush triggered the precautions in the hours after the September 11 strikes, and has left them in place because of continuing U.S. intelligence suggesting a possible threat.

Concerns that al Qaeda could have gained access to a crude nuclear device "were a major factor" in the president's decision, the official said. "The threat of some form of catastrophic event is the trigger," this official said.

This same official went on to say that the U.S. had no confirmation -- "and no solid evidence" -- that al Qaeda had such a nuclear device and also acknowledged that the "consensus" among top U.S. officials was that the prospect was "quite low."

Still, the officials said Bush and other top White House officials including Cheney were adamant that the government take precautions designed to make sure government functions ranging from civil defense to transportation and agricultural production could be managed in the event Washington was the target of a major strike.

As is apparent from a brief review of the news, the government has, since 9/11, continuously stated that there is a terrorist threat of a nuclear device or dirty bomb. That alone infers that COG plans could, hypothetically, still be in effect, just like the state of emergency is still in effect and has never been listed.

In addition, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna (lead journalist at Raw Story), writing about the 2001 Department of Justice memorandum that found that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,
It seems to me that this administration has justified its crimes by NOT suspending the state of emergency that went up on September 11, 2001. They are using emergency powers if you look at the whole of the spying, military actions inside the US, etc. I would wager that if asked, this administration will admit that we have been in a state of emergency for their tenure in office.
Alexandrovna not only believes that we have been in a state of emergency since 2001 (which the White House itself has verified, see above), but that the government has been using its emergency powers -- i.e. powers justified by a state of emergency -- in spying, carrying out military actions inside the U.S. (see this), and taking other extra-Constitutional actions.

As Tim Shorrock
wrote at Salon:
A contemporary version of the Continuity of Government program was put into play in the hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when Vice President Cheney and senior members of Congress were dispersed to "undisclosed locations" to maintain government functions. It was during this emergency period, Hamilton and other former government officials believe, that President Bush may have authorized the NSA to begin actively using the Main Core database for domestic surveillance. One indicator they cite is a statement by Bush in December 2005, after the New York Times had revealed the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, in which he made a rare reference to the emergency program: The Justice Department's legal reviews of the NSA activity, Bush said, were based on "fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government."
In 2007, President Bush issued Presidential Directive NSPD-51, which purported to change Continuity of Government plans. NSPD51 is odd because:
Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the President may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack, or to any ‘other condition.’ Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new Presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate.
  • Everyone from "conservative activist Jerome Corsi [to] Marjorie Cohn of the [liberal] National Lawyer's Guild have interpreted [the COG plans contained in Presidential Directive NSPD-51] as a break from Constitutional law ...."
  • As a reporter for Slate concluded after analyzing NSPD-51:
    I see nothing in the [COG document entitled presidential directive NSPD51] to prevent even a "localized" forest fire or hurricane from giving the president the right to throw long-established constitutional government out the window
  • White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that "because of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the American public needs no explanation of [Continuity of Government] plans"
  • Much Ado About Nothing?

    This may seem like much ado about nothing. But as I
    pointed out last September:
    According to Department of Defense training manuals, protest is considered "low-level terrorism". And see this, this and this.

    An FBI memo also labels peace protesters as "terrorists".

    Indeed, police have been terrorizing children, little old ladies and other "dangerous" people who attempted to protest peacefully.

    And a 2003 FBI memo describes protesters' use of videotaping as an "intimidation" technique, even though - as the ACLU points out - "Most mainstream demonstrators often use videotape during protests to document law enforcement activity and, more importantly, deter police from acting outside the law." The FBI appears to be objecting to the use of cameras to document unlawful behavior by law enforcement itself.

    The Internet has been labeled as a breeding ground for terrorists, with anyone who questions the government's versions of history being especially equated with terrorists.

    The government is also using anti-terrorism laws to keep people from learning what pollutants are in their own community. See this, this, this and this.

    Claims of "national security" are also used to keep basic financial information - such as who got bailout money - secret. That might not bode for particularly warm and friendly treatment for someone persistently demanding the release of such information.

    The state of Missouri tried to label as terrorists current Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters, former Congressman Bob Barr, libertarians in general, anyone who holds gold, and a host of other people.

    And according to a law school professor, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act:

    Anyone who ... speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.
    And see this.

    So the U.S. might be a much more gilded cage than Egypt ... but it is still a cage.

    Didn't 9/11 Change Everything?

    Many have claimed that 9/11 changed everything, and Americans can no longer abide by the idealistic ideas set forth in the Constitution.

    • The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this)
    • Cheney apparently even made Iraqi's oil fields a national security priority before 9/11
    • Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long before 9/11
    • Cheney and Rumsfeld actively generated fake intelligence which exaggerated the threat from an enemy in order to justify huge amounts of military spending long before 9/11. And see this
    • The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11
    • It was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn't work to produce accurate intelligence, but is an effective way to terrorize people
    Totalitarians are ancient Evil and spread corruption and must be brought to Justice as criminals in a modern peaceful society for us all to survive....
    The International Monetary Fund stands ready to help riot-torn Egypt rebuild its economy, the IMF chief said Tuesday as he warned governments to tackle unemployment and income inequality or risk war.

    No wonder former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski - who openly admitted that he created the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, who told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative", and who also told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation - warned the elites that:

    For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world.


    America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality: that the world's population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power. The need to respond to that massive phenomenon poses to the uniquely sovereign America an historic dilemma: What should be the central definition of America's global role?

    [T]he central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening. That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.
    It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21st century the population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and in many places seething with unrest. It is a population acutely conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity. The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches.

    That turmoil is the product of the political awakening, the fact that today vast masses of the world are not politically neutered, as they have been throughout history. They have political consciousness.


    Politically awakened mankind craves political dignity, which democracy can enhance, but political dignity also encompasses ethnic or national self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social rights, all in a world now acutely aware of economic, racial and ethnic inequities. The quest for political dignity, especially through national self-determination and social transformation, is part of the pulse of self-assertion by the world's underprivileged


    We live in an age in which mankind writ large is becoming politically conscious and politically activated to an unprecedented degree, and it is this condition which is producing a great deal of international turmoil.

    That turmoil is the product of the political awakening, the fact that today vast masses of the world are not politically neutered, as they have been throughout history. They have political consciousness...
    Just as during the Soviet collapse, and the decline of all Empires throughout history, the US is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

    The curtain has been peeled back on US economics. It isn't actually advanced, just sophisticated fraud. Much of the transactional justification for many of these puppets ("we must maintain order until we can grow the economy to support a more democratic and representative system") falls on its face. In reality much of their economic policy is exploitation that benefits the US and the regime, but prevents broad-based economic and social development. That's become clear to people now.