Tuesday, July 31, 2007

PJB -- SWFs And The Free Trade Path To National Suicide

Somewhere down the line
I know it’s just a matter of time
When the fun falls threw
And the rent comes due
Somewhere down the line.

PJB -- SWFs And The Free Trade Path To National Suicide

by Patrick J. Buchanan

The Iraq war has probably killed the idea of using U.S. troops to intervene in the name of Mr. Bush’s “world democratic revolution.”
The Middle American revolt that killed amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens has buried the idea of open-borders immigration.
Come now the SWFs, which may bring an end to America’s folly in her unthinking embrace of global free trade.
What are SWFs? They are Sovereign Wealth Funds – huge capital funds controlled by regimes that are the big new boys on the block in the world of global finance.
How are SWFs created? Primarily from the mammoth trade deficits America has run up. In 2006, America had a merchandise trade deficit of $836 billion and a current account deficit of $857 billion, or 6.5 percent of our entire Gross Domestic Product.
Foreign nations have piled up huge cash reserves. China, at the end of March, had $1.2 trillion; Japan nearly $900 billion; Russia, with oil and gas revenue pouring in, something like $300 billion. The Arab Gulf states also have huge hoards of dollar reserves.
Rather than keep all this cash in U.S. Treasury bonds earning 5 percent a year, these nations are creating SWFs to go after higher rates of return and corporate assets to advance strategic interests.
The United Arab Emirates has $500 billion in SWFs; Norway $400 billion; Singapore and Saudi Arabia $200 billion; and China nearly $200 billion. Total SWF funds worldwide is $2.5 trillion, writes ex-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, a figure that is expected to double to $5 trillion by 2010, and then double again to $12 trillion by 2015.
The problems these SWFs portend are enormous.
Since the Reagan-Thatcher era, privatization of publicly owned assets has been the trend in the free world. Airlines, railroads, mines, utilities, and telephone and telegraph companies have all been sold off by governments to private investors, who, to make them profitable, have made them efficient.
The SWFs reverse that trend. For these funds are all owned by or answerable to regimes, whose agents can direct these vast funds into assets not to produce maximum income, but maximum strategic benefit to the regime.
Suppose China, with its $1.2 trillion in reserves steadily rising from its soaring trade surpluses, begins to invest, through its SWF, in Boeing, Microsoft, IBM, GE and U.S. companies that build our strategic submarines, stealth bombers, satellites and missiles. Will the United States rope off the industries that build the weapons of our national defense from any ownership by SWFs?
If foreign investors can buy stock in these companies, why not foreign countries through SWFs?
Will we let China invest at all in such assets? What percent will Beijing be permitted to buy? Will SWFs be allowed to buy a controlling interest in a company responsible for weapons of national defense? Will they be allowed to buy controlling stakes in companies responsible for what remains of America’s lead in high-tech? Will they be allowed to extract the technology? Who will decide what companies are vital national assets that foreigners, or at least some foreigners, will not be allowed to take over, or even to invest in?
Recall the firestorm over the Dubai Ports deal. Americans did not want Arab sheiks running American ports, but there was no such outcry when the idea of a British firm running them was broached.
The new corporate raiders are going to be a far tougher lot than the old, for this game is going to be about bigger stakes than where one ranks on the Forbes or Fortune list of billionaires.
As Summers writes: “In the last month, we have seen government-controlled Chinese entities take the largest external stake … in Blackstone, a big private equity group that indirectly, through its holdings, is one of the largest employers in the U.S. … Gazprom, a Russian conglomerate in effect controlled by the Kremlin, has strategic interests in the energy sector of a number of countries, and even a stake in Airbus. Entities controlled by the governments of China and Singapore are offering to take a substantial stake in Barclays, giving it more heft in its effort to pull off the world’s largest banking merger with ABN Amro.”
Is it a good idea to give the boys in Beijing part ownership of Western banking institutions and the information they contain?
Should Rupert Murdoch retire and his successors decide to divest some media properties, will China’s Sovereign Wealth Fund be allowed to buy shares? One recalls the hysteria in Washington during the Reagan years when it was learned that South Africans might use a front group to buy the Washington Star.
Under free trade, we Americans have seen our jobs, technology, factories and wealth leave these shores for foreign lands. Now, our money is coming back to buy up our companies and our country.
Yes, indeed, we are witnessing how empires end.

PJB -- Words Of Wisdom From Pat Buchanan

PJB -- Words Of Wisdom From Pat Buchanan


What can be said for a man who would allow his home to be invaded by strangers who demanded they be fed, clothed, housed and granted the rights of the first-born? What can be said for a ruling elite that permits this to be done to the nation, and who celebrate it as a milestone of moral progress? -- State of Emergency

Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents have made clear their intent to take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war. -- State of Emergency

Will the American Southwest become a giant Kosovo, a part of the nation separated from the rest by language, ethnicity, history and culture, to be reabsorbed in all but name by Mexico from whom we took these lands in the time of Jackson and Polk? -- State of Emergency

With perhaps 4 million illegal aliens having broken in in Bush’s five-and-a-half years in office, and our border states being daily breached by thousands more, can anyone say President Bush has protected the states of this Union against that invasion? In an earlier America, this dereliction of constitutional duty would have called forth articles of impeachment. -- State of Emergency

High among the costs of immigration is the appearance among us of diseases that never before afflicted us and the sudden reappearance of contagious diseases that researchers and doctors had eradicated long ago. Malaria, polio, hepatitis, tuberculosis and such rarities of the Third World as dengue fever, Chagas’ Disease and leprosy are surfacing here... -- State of Emergency

By 2050 there will be almost 2.5 times as many people here as in 1960: 420 million. The share of the population of European descent will be a minority as it is today in California, Texas and New Mexico. And that minority will be aging, shrinking and dying. There will be as many Hispanics here, 102 million, as there are Mexicans today in Mexico... -- State of Emergency

By nation of origin of our people, by 2050, America will be a Third World country. Our great cities will all look like Los Angeles today. Los Angeles and the cities of the Southwest will look like Juarez and Tijuana... -- State of Emergency

As Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended. -- State of Emergency

Mass immigration is swamping the GOP base. Tens of millions of immigrants who vote Democratic, once they are naturalized and registered, have come and are coming to America. History may yet record that the Immigration Act of 1965 act converted 'The Emerging Republican Majority' of Kevin Phillips’ classic work into the Lost Colony of the 21st century. -- State of Emergency

In 1960, the U.S. population was 89% white. By 1990, it was 76%. Today, it is under 70%. By 2050, white Americans, the most loyal voting bloc the Republican Party has, that provides 90% of all GOP votes, will be just another minority because of an immigration policy championed by Republicans. When John Stuart Mill called the Tories ‘the Stupid Party,’ he was not entirely wrong. -- State of Emergency

With the Constitution, the law, and the politics on the side of doing his duty and securing our broken border, why does President Bush not act? What is paralyzing the White House? Answer:
Political correctness, political cowardice, political opportunism, a sense of guilt for America’s sins, and twin ideologies that have a grip on our elites not unlike a religious cult. The proud old boast, “Here, sir, the people rule!” no longer applies. We no longer live in a truly democratic republic. -- State of Emergency

The Bush plan is economic treason against the American worker. That “civil rights leaders” are silent about the dispossession of the black working class, that unions are not marching to denounce this sellout of blue-collar and white-collar America, only tells us that the amorality of the transnational corporation has infected both. Solidarity be damned, it is all about money now. -- State of Emergency

In El Plan de Aztlan, "Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent... -- State of Emergency

The MEChA slogan is "Por la Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada," which translates, "For the race, everything. Outside of the race, nothing." The MEChA slogan seems a conscious echo of the Fascist slogan of Mussolini: "Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state." -- State of Emergency

What makes the Pastor-CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] plan remarkable is that those who would abolish America are out of the closet. The penultimate step to world government, a North American Union built on the model of the European Union, to one day merge with it in a World Union of Nations and Peoples, is before us on the table. -- State of Emergency

The temptation is to think that Vicente Fox, who heads a country 46% of whose people would like to live in the United States, is but another failed Third World visionary prattling on for the benefit of globalists who have been beavering away on their impossible dream for generations... -- State of Emergency

...The reality is otherwise. [Vicente] Fox & friends are far closer than all but a few realize to making inevitable a North American Union where American sovereignty is dissipated and the republic is no more. -- State of Emergency

This strategy aims directly at a reannexation of the Southwest, not militarily, but ethnically, linguistically and culturally through transfer of millions of Mexicans into the United States and a migration of “Anglos” out of the lands Mexico lost in 1848. In California, the project is well advanced. -- State of Emergency

Stated bluntly, the Aztlan Strategy entails the end of the United States as a sovereign, self-sufficient, independent republic, the passing away of the American nation. They are coming to conquer us. -- State of Emergency

Democracy is not enough. If the culture dies, the country dies. -- State of Emergency

Who would lay down his life for the UN, EU or a ‘North American Union?’... Every true nation is the creation of a unique people, separate from all others. Indeed, if America is an ideological nation grounded no deeper than in the sandy soil of abstract ideas, she will not survive the storms of this century any more than the Soviet Union survived the storms of the last... -- State of Emergency

A true nation is held together not by any political creed but by patriotism.... For two centuries, men have died for America. -- State of Emergency

The seething racial resentment in the Third World against the West -- decades after independence and trillions in foreign aid -- should cause second thoughts about opening our borders to mass immigration from that world. Not everyone coming here brings in his heart the passionate attachment to America we attribute to the peoples of Ellis Island. -- State of Emergency

Young Asian males are nine times as likely as white youth to belong to a gang and Hispanic youth are 19 times more likely. A disproportionate share of Hispanic young and poor are thus assimilating into a misogynistic, rebellious, youth sub-culture of drugs, gangs, crime, contempt for formal education, and hostility to police. -- State of Emergency

Like the Paris riots, the struggle over French history raises grave questions for Europe. How does the presence of 20 million Muslims who come from nations where men believe their grandfathers were exploited and persecuted by Europeans advance the unity and security of Europe? How is Europe made stronger by such ‘diversity’? -- State of Emergency

Islamization of Europe is an unavoidable consequence, indeed, an inevitability, once Europe ceased to reproduce itself. The descendants of the men who went out from Europe to conquer and Christianize the world have decided to leave the world. The culture of death triumphs, as the poor but fecund Muslims, expelled centuries ago, return to inherit the estate. -- State of Emergency

In his litany of famous immigrants who have contributed mightily to America, JFK does not mention a single woman, African or Asian. All are males and all were from Europe, except one West Indian: Alexander Hamilton. And JFK assures the nation, "Immigrants would still be given tests for health, intelligence, morality and security... -- State of Emergency

Our illegal population alone exceeds the all the Irish, Jewish and British immigrants who came. Each year, we catch more people breaking in at the border than all the Swedes and Norwegians who came to America in 200 years. Half a million illegal aliens succeed in breaking in every year, more than all the Greeks or Poles who came legally from the Revolution to 1960. -- State of Emergency

The crisis of the West is a collapsing culture and vanishing peoples, as a Third World that grows by 100 million people, the equivalent of a new Mexico, every 18 months, mounts the greatest invasion in history of the world. If we do not shake off our paralysis, the West comes to an end. -- State of Emergency

Concerned about his legacy, George W. Bush may yet live to see his name entered into the history of his country as the president who lost the American Southwest that James K. Polk won for the United States. -- State of Emergency

If we do not solve our civilizational crisis -- a disintegrating culture, dying populations, and invasions unresisted -- the children born in 2006 will witness in their lifetimes the death of the West. In our hearts we know what must be done. We must stop the invasion. But do our leaders have the vision and will to do it? -- State of Emergency

There is no conservative party left in Washington. Conservative thinkers and writers who were to be the watchdogs of orthodoxy have been as vigilant in policing party deviations from principle as was Cardinal Law in collaring the predator-priests of the Boston archdiocese. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

The Beltway Right has entered into a civil union with Big Brother. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Under the rubric of conservatism, the Republican party of Bush I and II has been reinventing itself into what conservatives would have once recognized as a Rockefeller party reciting Reaganite rhetoric. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

A civil war is going to break out inside the Republican Party along the old trench lines of the Goldwater-Rockefeller wars of the 1960s, a war for the heart and soul and future of the party. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Neoconservatives are the boat people of the McGovern revolution. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Kristol’s warning that neoconservatives could go to Kerry was an admission of what many have long recognized. The neoconservatives are not really conservatives at all. They are impostors and opportunists. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Nine days after an attack on the United States, this tiny clique of intellectuals [Neocons] was telling the President of the United States...that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged publicly with a ‘decisive surrender’ to terrorism. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

The Bush Doctrine is a prescription for permanent war for permanent peace, though wars are the death of republics. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

The Bush National Security Strategy is the imperial edict of a superpower out to exploit its present supremacy to make itself permanent Lord Protector of the universe. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

The Bush Doctrine is democratic imperialism. This will bleed, bankrupt and isolate this republic. This overthrows the wisdom of the Founding Fathers about what America should be all about. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Listening to the neoconservatives, Bush invaded Iraq, united the Arab world against us, isolated us from Europe, and fulfilled to the letter bin Laden’s prophecy as to what we were about. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

If Iraq collapses in chaos and civil war, there will be a ferocious fight in this country over who misled us and who may have lied us, into war. Into the dock will go the neoconservatives whose class project this was. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Terrorism is the price of empire. If we do not wish to pay it, we must give up the empire. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

We are not hated for who we are. We are hated for what we do. It is not our principles that have spawned pandemic hatred of America in the Islamic world. It is our policies. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

If war is the continuation of politics by other means, terrorism is the continuation of war by other means. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

America’s enemy in the Islamic world is not a state we can crush with sanctions or an enemy we can defeat with force of arms. The enemy is a cause, a movement, an idea. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

U.S. dominance of the Middle East is not the corrective to terror. It is a cause of terror. Were we not over there, the 9/11 terrorists would not have been over here. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

The Sharon Plan is not a peace plan. It is a unilateral solution to be imposed by Israel.... A Palestinian leader who signs on to this surrender of land and rights would be signing his death warrant. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

As China is the one nation with the size, population, ideology and power to contest the United States for hegemony in Asia, is war inevitable? Answer: No more inevitable than was war between Germany and Great Britain in 1914. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

It is false to say President Bush presided over a "jobless recovery." His trade deficits have created many millions of jobs in China. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Free trade is the serial killer of American manufacturing and the Trojan Horse of World Government. It is the primrose path to the loss of economic independence and national sovereignty. Free trade is a bright shining lie. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Globalization is the economic treason that dare not speak it name. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

On Bush “Free Trade” policies, the Republican Party has signed off on economic treason. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Bush has compiled a fiscal record of startling recklessness. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

There is no conservative party in Washington. There is a Democratic Party of tax-and-spend and a Republican Party of guns and butter and tax cuts, too. Washington is all accelerator, the brakes are gone. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Like Thelma and Louise, Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff. And we are in the back seat. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

The dirty little secret is that Congress no longer wants the accountability that goes with the wielding of power. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

How did it happen that a republic born of a rebellion against a king and parliament we did not elect has fallen under a tyranny of judges we did not elect? -- Where the Right Went Wrong

The Left has found the Ho Chi Minh Trail around democracy...to impose its views and values upon our society without having to win elections or persuade elected legislators. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

In July 1944, at the Mount Washington Hotel in the resort town of Bretton Woods in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White created the New World Order. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

Ten years after NAFTA, Mexico's leading export to America is still--Mexicans. America is becoming Mexamerica. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

If the success of the Bush presidency hinges on the outcome of the war in Iraq, that war is even more critical to the cabal that exploited 9/11 to maneuver us into it... All the neocon eggs are in the Baghdad basket. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

If America is about anything, she is about freedom. We have seen in the burgeoning Department of Homeland Security and at our airports and in the color-coded alerts the beginning of the erosion of that freedom. -- Where the Right Went Wrong

PJB -- How Empires End

PJB -- How Empires End

by Patrick J. Buchanan
July 20, 2007

Responding to the call of Pope Urban II at Claremont in 1095, the Christian knights of the First Crusade set out for the Holy Land. In 1099, Jerusalem was captured. As their port in Palestine, the Crusaders settled on Acre on the Mediterranean.
There they built the great castle that was overrun by Saladin in 1187, but retaken by Richard the Lion-Hearted in 1191. Acre became the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the stronghold of the Crusader state, which fell to the Mameluks in a bloody siege in 1291. The Christians left behind were massacred.
The ruins of Acre are now a tourist attraction.
Any who have visited this last outpost of Christendom in the Holy Land before Gen. Allenby marched into Jerusalem in 1917 cannot – on reading of the massive U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad – but think of Acre.
At a cost of $600 million, with walls able to withstand mortar and rocket fire and space to accommodate 1,000 Americans, this mammoth embassy, largest on earth, will squat on the banks of the Tigris inside the Green Zone.
But, a decade hence, will the U.S. ambassador be occupying this imperial compound? Or will it be like the ruins of Acre?
What raises the question is a sense the United States, this time, is truly about to write off Iraq as a lost cause.
The Republican lines on Capitol Hill are crumbling. Starting with Richard Lugar, one GOP senator after another has risen to urge a drawdown of U.S. forces and a diplomatic solution to the war.
But this is non-credible. How can U.S. diplomats win at a conference table what 150,000 U.S. troops cannot secure on a battlefield?
Though Henry Kissinger was an advocate of this unnecessary war, he is not necessarily wrong when he warns of “geopolitical calamity.” Nor is Ryan Crocker, U.S. envoy in Iraq, necessarily wrong when he says a U.S. withdrawal may be the end of the America war, but it will be the start of bloodier wars in Iraq and across the region.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari also warns of the perils of a rapid withdrawal: “The dangers vary from civil war to dividing the country to regional wars … the danger is huge. Until the Iraqi forces and institutions complete their readiness, there is a responsibility on the U.S. and other countries to stand by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to help build up their capabilities.”
In urging a redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq and a new focus on diplomacy, Lugar listed four strategic goals. Prevent creation of a safe haven for terrorists. Prevent sectarian war from spilling out into the broader Middle East. Prevent Iran’s domination of the region. Limit the loss of U.S. credibility through the region and world as a result of a failed mission in Iraq.
But how does shrinking the U.S. military power and presence in Iraq advance any of these goals?
Longtime critics of the war like Gen. William Odom say it is already lost, and fighting on will only further bleed the country and make the ultimate price even higher. The general may be right in saying it is time to cut our losses. But we should take a hard look at what those losses may be.
It is a near certainty the U.S.-backed government will fall and those we leave behind will suffer the fate of our Vietnamese and Cambodian friends in 1975. As U.S. combat brigades move out, contractors, aid workers and diplomats left behind will be more vulnerable to assassination and kidnapping. There could be a stampede for the exit and a Saigon ending in the Green Zone.
The civil and sectarian war will surely escalate when we go, with Iran aiding its Shia allies and Sunni nations aiding the Sunnis. A breakup of the country seems certain. Al-Qaida will claim it has run the U.S. superpower out of Iraq and take the lessons it has learned to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The Turks, with an army already on the border, will go in to secure their interests in not having the Kurdish PKK operating from Iraq and in guaranteeing there is no independent Kurdistan. What will America do then?
As for this country, the argument over who is responsible for the worst strategic debacle in American history will be poisonous.
With a U.S. defeat in Iraq, U.S. prestige would plummet across the region. Who will rely on a U.S. commitment for its security? Like the British and French before us, we will be heading home from the Middle East.
What we are about to witness is how empires end.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

An American Auto Graveyard

An American Auto Graveyard

by Patrick J. Buchanan - February 16, 2007

On Valentine’s Day, Chrysler sent a bouquet to its North American workers. Eleven thousand manufacturing jobs will be eliminated in the next 24 months – 9,000 in the states and 2,000 in Canada – and 2,000 white-collar workers will be let go, permanently.
The SUV assembly plant in Newark, Del., will be closed. The Warren, Mich., truck plant and South St. Louis assembly plant will each lose one of their two shifts. Earlier, Ford posted the largest loss of any company in history, $12.7 billion, breaking GM’s record $10.6 billion loss in 2005.
Toyota, having swept by Chrysler and Ford, is challenging GM for first in sales in the U.S. market. When we were growing up, U.S. automakers had the entire U.S. market to themselves and dominated the world market.
How is Japan succeeding?
First, the Japanese make fine cars. Second, Japan manipulates its currency to keep it cheap against the dollar, to keep the price of Japanese autos below comparable U.S. models. Third, Tokyo maintains a lock on its home market by imposing a value added tax on auto imports from America, and rebating that tax on autos and parts exported to America. This double-subsidy can give a Japanese car a 15 percent price advantage over a Ford or GM car in both markets.
Fourth, Japanese auto companies setting up plants here are free of “legacy costs” of pensions and health insurance for retired U.S. workers, for Japanese companies have almost no retired American workers. Legacy costs at GM, Ford and Chrysler must be factored into the price of every car.
Finally, there is the venerable practice of “transfer pricing.” Japanese auto parts manufacturers overcharge U.S subsidiaries for parts. This cuts the profits of their U.S subsidiaries and thus reduces their U.S. corporate taxes. Profits are repatriated, virtually untaxed, to Japan.
Thus is Japan capturing America’s auto market and bringing down the great companies that built the machines of war that brought down Japan’s empire. Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.
To stay competitive in their own home market, U.S. manufacturers are closing down plants, laying off American workers and building their cars outside the United States.
The day before Chrysler’s announcement, the Census Bureau trade figures were released. Charles MacMillion of MBG Information Services had them broken down before they hit the wires.
In 2006, the United States ran a deficit in traded goods of $836 billion, a fifth-straight world record. For manufactured goods, the U.S. trade deficit reached $536 billion, worsening from the 2005 record of $504 billion. Under President Bush, 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have disappeared – one in every six.
To understand what is happening to Chrysler, Ford and GM, one need only glance at the trade figures in the auto sector. The United States ran a trade deficit in trucks, autos and auto parts of $144.7 billion.
If America continues on this course, where we have run up $4 trillion in trade deficits in manufactured goods since Bill Clinton took office, the end is predictable.
An eventual collapse of the dollar, making us a poorer nation. The shuttering of every U.S. factory that makes traded goods. A constant hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs, now down to 10 percent of our labor force. An end of America’s pre-eminence as the world’s foremost industrial and technological power. An end to the Second American Century, as the Asian Century begins.
Everything some have been warning about for decades – huge trade deficits, a falling dollar, de-industrialization, a rising dependence on foreigners for the vital necessities of our national life, diminished freedom of action concomitant with that dependency – has come to pass.
The world is witnessing the passing of the United States as the greatest industrial power and the most self-sufficient republic the world had ever seen. Yet, no one acts. Why?
Ideology is one reason. Free-trade fanatics are like those devout Christians who will not undergo surgery, even if their malady is killing them. Second, there are the obtuse who simply cannot see that our “trade partners” have found a way around the rules and are skinning us alive.
Third, to gain and hold high office, candidates of both parties depend on the contributions of a monied elite, whose salaries, bonuses, stock options and golden parachutes depend on a rising share price, which means constantly cutting costs by moving production out of United States and getting rid of high-wage American workers.
There are rewards for economic treason.
Look for the Democrats to find a way to give Bush – despite the astonishing record of trade failures documented above – fast-track authority to negotiate still more such trade deals. Who takes the king’s shilling becomes the king’s man.

Does Upwardly Global Mean Downwardly Mobile For American Workers?

Does Upwardly Global Mean Downwardly Mobile For American Workers

Joe Guzzardi
V Dare
Monday July 23, 2007

Within the last few years, three of my ten nieces and nephews have left Guatemala, where they were born (their mothers both married Guatemalans when our family were expatriates there) and moved to the U.S.
Two of them have relocated in California and the third, in Florida.
All are employed. One works in a middle-management job in the hotel industry, the second is in international sports broadcasting and the third in retail.
Since they are bilingual, well-groomed and educated, they had no trouble landing work.
But, odd as it may seem, I’m of two minds about their recent relocation.
On the one hand, I’m delighted that they have left Guatemala’s cultural and economic wasteland.
At the same time, I have to wonder if they have taken jobs that would otherwise have gone to job-seeking Americans, or to the employed among us who want to improve their station in life.
I have, after all, spent most of the last twenty years arguing on behalf of the ever-shrinking American middle class.
Then again, who really knows? In the immigration-mad world in which we live, illegal aliens may have filled the jobs my relatives now hold.
The rub in all this is that my nieces and nephews ARE Americans. Well, make that “Americans.” Even though they were born in Guatemala, visited America only occasionally and consider themselves Guatemaltecas through and through, they have U.S. passports.
They are, because of what is known in citizenship law as ius sanguinis (“right of the blood”), as American as you or me.
My nieces and nephew are American citizens (actually dual citizens) with passports that allow them the freedom to come and go from the U.S. as they please.
According to Section 301 of the INA [8 USC § 1401] the following classes of people have US citizenship from the time of birth:
Anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction (basically meaning anyone other than a child of foreign government representatives with diplomatic immunity);

Indians and other aboriginal people born in the US;

Anyone born outside the US, if at least one parent is a US citizen and certain residency or physical presence requirements were fulfilled by the citizen parent or parents prior to the child's birth;

Anyone who is found in the US while under five years of age, whose parents cannot be identified, and who is not shown prior to his or her 21st birthday to have been born outside the US.

Under the provision that grants citizenship to children born outside of the U.S. and who have at least one citizen parent who satisfies “certain residency or physical presence requirements,” my nieces and nephew qualify as citizens.
In other words, their citizen mothers lived in the U.S. for a period long enough to meet immigration law requirements.
Whatever impact my relatives’ presence in the U.S. may have on the labor market is beyond anyone’s control. No part of ius sanguinis will be changed anytime soon. In fact, efforts to alter these laws have been only in “more liberal direction”, according to dual citizenship expert Rich Wales.
However, non-citizen legal immigrants, green card holders, present an altogether different challenge.
A recent Associated Press story stated that immigrants expect to land jobs equal to positions they held in their home country. Whether or not they have skills equivalent to those of native Americans is questionable. [Educated Immigrants Often Cannot Connect With Jobs That Match Skills, by Julianna Barbassa, Associated Press, July 14, 2007]
A bank vice president in Honduras does not necessarily have the same abilities or training as a Manhattan-based Citibank vice president.
But in our corporate world, addicted to affirmative action, ability may be less important than diversity.
Check out what John Bradley, director of human resources at the investment bank JP Morgan Chase had to say.
“This (legal immigrants) is clearly an under-leveraged talent pool. We’re in constant need of a supply of talent and this is a viable, well-trained source that we hadn’t focused on in the past.”
Reading Bradley’s comment, the uninitiated might think that JP Morgan Chase has to scramble to find personnel. Of course, the exact opposite is true. The prestigious firm can pick and choose among thousands of qualified American prospects.
But instead, Bradley—and dozens of other Fortune 500 corporations—now rely on Upwardly Global (see its website here), a nonprofit organization with offices in New York and San Francisco that, according to founder Jane Leu, [email her] recruits “well-educated legal immigrants” and helps them “sharpen their ability to market themselves and connect with employers interested in their skills.”
JP Morgan Chase is the “premier partner” with Upwardly Global. Predicted Bradley: “I’m convinced that over the next 12 months you will thank us for being part of this.”
How much you thank JP Morgan Chase may depend upon your point of view.
If you are an immigrant from one of the 50 countries and coached by Upwardly Global in the intricacies of the job interview, you’re delighted.
But if you are a displaced American professional, the chances are you’ll be more angry than thankful.
Most infuriating is the sense of entitlement.
Remember that every legal immigrant voluntarily decides to migrate to the U.S.
Before embarking on his trip, they presumably weighed many factors. Top among them would be job opportunities.
What would make any immigrant think that they would immediately be at the head of the line for professional positions? What starting job would they expect to hold—partner at Goldman, Sachs?
But the Upwardly Global website is full of unsubstantiated claims and mumbo-jumbo about the value of foreign-born workers like this one from consultant Ed Hubbard:
“Ignoring foreign-born workers' contributions because of bias can cost companies as much as 25% of an eight-hour workday.”
And this tripe from former Bank of America Executive Vice President of Corporate Diversity Development, Valerie Crane:
“Corporate culture crosses all geographies, and we have to balance global with local needs, corporate values with local, and ensure a culture of inclusion.”
If you live in New York or San Francisco, where Upwardly Global maintains offices, and have some time on your hands as summer winds down, attend one of its events for an eye-opening experience. See the schedule here.
The stakes are high for all of us. Note that one of the Upwardly Global “success stories” is that of Columbian-born Clara Ines Torres who, when she first came to America, was a part-time Spanish tutor.
But Torres has moved up in the world. Currently, thanks to Upwardly Global she works for Catholic Charities as a paid immigration advocate.
Great! Just what we need!
More immigration advocacy!

EU treaty '96 per cent identical' to dropped constitution

EU treaty '96 per cent identical' to dropped constitution

Daily Mail
Tuesday July 24, 2007

The Tories renewed calls for a new EU treaty to be put to a referendum today as critics claimed it was 96 per cent identical to the dropped Constitution.
Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said the similarities made it a "flagrant breach" of Labour manifesto promises to refuse voters a direct say.
A draft treaty was published yesterday and a three-month "intergovernmental conference" launched to come up with a replacement for the constitution thrown out by French and Dutch voters.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband insisted last night that the concept of a constitution "has been abandoned", making a referendum unnecessary.
But the Open Europe think-tank said only 10 out of 250 proposals had been changed and Mr Hague said there was "near unanimity" across Europe that it remained the constitution "in all but name".
He told the Policy Exchange think-tank: "It is our belief that this Treaty should not be ratified without the British people's agreement in a referendum for two reasons: first, because the referendum question goes to the heart of the issue of trust in politics; and, secondly, because such a fundamental change to powers and role of nation states such as ours vis-a-vis the European Union should require the British people's explicit consent in a national vote.
"Let me remind you what the Labour Party's election manifesto said: 'We will put it - the EU Constitution - to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a 'Yes' vote'.
"For the avoidance of any doubt, the last Prime Minister said: 'What you can't do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go'.
"There can be no question, then, that if this new Treaty is, in fact, effectively the EU Constitution by another name that a failure to put it to a referendum would be a fundamental breach of trust between the Government and voters."
He went on: "The heart of the Government's argument is a near meaningless fig leaf. It is clear, then, that this is the Constitution by another name. Its effects on the EU and our relationship to it are wide-ranging and profound."
There would be a "massive boost" to the powers of the European Court of Justice, asylum, immigration and criminal justice policy increasingly determined at an EU level, the beginnings of an EU FBI and Britain's role in foreign policy gradually shrinking," he said.
"The British Government is left trying to rush through a Treaty they know is profoundly objectionable to the British people, as all polls show, as quickly and quietly as they can, desperately hoping that voters will not mind that they are in flagrant breach of their election promises.
"The 2005 Labour Party manifesto did not say that the Government would bring in 90% of the EU Constitution under another guise if another country rejected it before the British people had had the chance to have their say. Yet, in an act of extraordinary cynicism, Gordon Brown's Government is proposing to do exactly that.
"What does Gordon Brown think people will make of his talk of consultation if he won't consult them on a question of fundamental importance to this country's future, on which the overwhelming majority of the British people want to have their promised say?
"The answer is simple: trust the people and let them decide."
Open Europe director Neil O'Brien said: "We never expected that they would simply bring back all the text from the old constitution. All they seem to have done is renumber the articles.
"From this point forward it's going to become absolutely impossible for Gordon Brown to resist a referendum, because this is exactly the same text that he promised a referendum on before.
"If Brown now tries to carry on pretending that this is somehow a different document, it will be one of the most audacious political lies in the last couple of decades.
"It would be simply ludicrous.
"Despite the fact that it has not been made available in English, we have been able to translate the text from the French quite quickly because we could mostly just cut and paste the English text from the old Constitution.
"The con they are trying to carry out here is just stunning; this is the cut-and-paste Constitution."

Canadians completely unaware of looming North American Union

Canadians completely unaware of looming North American Union

Kevin Parkinson
Global Research
Tuesday July 24, 2007

On August 20, the most powerful president in the world will be arriving in Montebello, Quebec, for a two-day conference. President George W. Bush will be meeting with Stephen Harper and their Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderon. So far, the silence from the Canadian and American media has been deafening.
Talk to 90 percent of people on the street and they won’t know about this upcoming conference, and if by a slim chance they do, they won’t know the purpose of the meeting or why the leaders of Canada, United States and Mexico are meeting in the dog days of summer under what amounts to a veil of secrecy.
So, what’s this upcoming conference all about, and why are the newspapers, radio and television keeping silent about it?
The purpose of the upcoming conference is to ratify the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which was initiated by Bush, Martin and Fox in 2005 in Waco, Texas. Essentially, this so-called ‘partnership’ will result in what the politicians refer to as ‘continental integration’ -- newspeak for a North American Union -- and basically a harmonization of 100s of regulations, policies and laws.
In layman’s terms, it means that once this ‘partnership’ has been ratified, which is a fait accompli, we will be following in the footsteps of the European Union. It will mean that Canada will become part of the North American Union by 2010, and that our resources, agricultural, health and environment issues, to name a few, will be controlled not by Canada, but by the government of the North American Union.
A huge ‘NAFTA’ highway, one quarter of a mile wide, is already being built in Texas, where private land is being expropriated, and will eventually reach the Manitoba border.
Water will be the ‘issue’ of this century, as more than 25 states in the U.S. are currently in desperate need. Where do you think they will get the water they need?
The United States is already guaranteed 60 percent of our natural gas resources from NAFTA, which mean that even during emergencies when we need energy, we will have to import it, while we are forced to export gas to the U.S. This is just one example of how Canada is being shortchanged, and it’s only going to get worse.
Why has there been absolutely NO public consultation on the biggest issue (North American Union) facing Canadians since Confederation? Why isn’t Guy Lauzon, our local MP for Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry, holding town hall meetings, bringing in cabinet ministers and explaining how the emerging North American Union will affect our Canadian way of life? Ask the citizens of Canada for their feedback. Isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?
Folks, I suggest that Mr. Lauzon isn’t even aware of the SPP or the North American Union, which explains why the Conservative government has denied all Canadians information to which they are entitled. If he does have something to say about it, then let him raise the issue in our riding.
Furthermore, the example of the North American Union illustrates that our government claims to be democratic, but in fact, does it act like one, or does it prefer to make the big decisions at committee level behind closed doors, while masking its real intentions?
The ratification of the SPP, and the emergence of the North American Union have been organized entirely by government committees and private enterprise. I refer readers to my website at www.realitycheck.typepad.com for further information on the North American Union.
If our citizenry allows the North American Union to come into existence, then our way of life will change drastically, for the years to come. With privatization of our resources, increased foreign ownership, and a Canadian government with less and less authority, our children and grandchildren will be come ‘North Americans’ and our quality of life will drastically decline.
The founding fathers of Canada must be rolling over in their graves.

Scare-Mongering and Executive Orders

Scare-Mongering and Executive Orders

Tuesday July 24, 2007

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.

Big Brother Biometric Plans in New Haven Planned for All Americans

Big Brother Biometric Plans in New Haven Planned for All Americans

William Gheen
Tuesday July 24, 2007

Tonight, more of the nation will hear our message, when I appear on the Fox News show The O'Reilly Factor. This is my first appearance on this show although I have been on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC many times.

The topic is the implementation of a new program in New Haven, Connecticut, in which the city plans to give new ID cards to illegal aliens that can be used to obtain bank accounts and tax funded city services.

Of course, we oppose this plan and feel that our existing immigration laws should be enforced instead! Federal law states that it is a felony for any person or corporation to willingly aid and abet illegal aliens that either enter the US or remain here unlawfully. We feel the actions of the New Haven City Council violates that laws! (See: Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii))

When we heard the news about New Haven's plan, we considered sending out a press release decrying their flagrant violations of existing laws. However, we figured our outcry would be lost in the multitude of complaints. After all, we are having no problem finding a long list of existing immigration laws that the Bush administration is refusing to enforce, on behalf of their big business allies. In fact, we are having trouble finding very many existing immigration laws that the Bush administration or Homeland Security are actually enforcing!

We decided to create a flier, in English and Spanish that any American can easily print and distribute in their community, to encourage local illegal aliens to go to New Haven.

While we would prefer that the President begin honoring his oath of office, the US Constitution, the will of Congress and the will of over 80% of the American public by enforcing our existing laws, we are willing to just send the illegals to New Haven in the meantime.

Existing law states that illegal aliens are to be removed from the US when detected but the laws are only being minimally enforced at this time.

ALIPAC believes that if the President merely announced he was going to start enforcing our existing immigration laws next month, there would be a cry of great rejoicing from the American public and the illegals would begin to leave by the millions on their own accord!

Meanwhile, let's send as many illegal aliens to New Haven as possible!

A few more thousand illegals in New Haven and they will have to start closing hospitals, begging for huge school bonds, and appealing for federal aid to combat the drugs, human smuggling and illegal alien gangs on their streets like the many high impact areas across America!

We know this program works because of the hundreds of calls we have received at ALIPAC from "Undocumented Workers" seeking more information and travel details for New Haven!

Please help us prepare for the reaction to tonight's newscast, by visiting this link and printing and distributing as many of these fliers as possible THIS WEEK!

Flier view and print link....

One matter of contention is that some illegal alien supporting groups have filed a lawsuit against Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) claiming the raids are in retaliation for New Haven's new policy.

Our view differs on this matter.

Yes, we believe that Michael Chertoff and Homeland Security are upset with the actions of New Haven, but not because New Haven is assisting, aiding and abetting illegal aliens.

If this were true, the Bush administration could easily apply the existing laws and overturn New Haven's ID card plans.

Many of us believe that the Bush administration is upset with New Haven for two reasons.

One, the New Haven biometric ID for illegal aliens and a stealth national ID for all Americans was impeded in the recently failed Senate amnesty bill. Further mention of using biometric ID, to maintain internal security, in the US is mentioned in the Bush administration's SPP or Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement with Canada and Mexico, which can be found at SPP.gov The SPP documents call the use of biometric ID for citizens, immigrants and illegals.

The use of these measures is also mentioned in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) document called "Building a North American Community". They advocate that the borders are obsolete and that there should be a free flow of people, goods and services between the three countries, which will use a "an outer (virtual) security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal" This document was released by the CFR shortly after President Bush, Vicente Fox of Mexico, and Prime Minister Martin of Canada announced the formation of the SPP, at Baylor University in Texas in the Spring of 2005, which is the famous press conference where Bush called the Minutemen "vigilantes".

Our movement, the immigration enforcement movement, calls these plans the NORTH AMERICAN UNION.

While we realize that many Americans will find these facts to be incredulous due to the small amount of discussion and airtime these subjects receive through the traditional media, we can substantiate our claims with the vast amount of information collected within the ALIPAC archives.

There is a lot of confusion about how these biometric ID's work and what they mean for all Americans.

Simply put, the Federal agencies need as many high quality digital close up pictures of the faces of Americans and illegal aliens that are tied to as many other traditional documents as possible. These high quality photos are needed for a system called Facial Recognition Technology (FRT). Another popular form of biometric ID includes fingerprints.

The difference between the two is that you will know when you are submitting your finger prints to be scanned.

FRT can scan your face and take your ID, without your knowledge anytime you walk past a camera, visible or hidden, that is connected to the computerized facial recognition and biometric ID system.

From what we can tell, the Department of Motor Vehicles in 14 states are already collecting the information needed to put you into the FRT system and this info is collected when you apply for one of the new passports that is required to enter or leave America, or when you apply for one of the new credit cards that Bank of America is offering illegal aliens in Southern California.

Most of these systems are being sold in the Federal marketplace by the Higgins Corporation, which is the same biometric ID vendor that is contracted with New Haven.

This is the most powerful surveillance system ever created in human history that allows a government to monitor and spy on their own people. One of our supporters described it as a "Soviet Union electronic wet dream"!

When you enter an airport, trains station, shopping Mall, step up to an ATM, or walk down a city street, the cameras isolate your face and sample your facial fingerprint, without human monitoring or your knowledge.

Your face becomes your ID, once they have a digital photo that is correctly aligned with your electronic signature, which is a governmental collection of all known electronic data about you. From reports in the media, it appears your facial biometric ID will be associated with your banking records, credit records, criminal records, driving records, library and Internet usage records. The Government believes they can calculate your terrorism probability rating by running programs on your electronic data and tracking information.

This biometric system has not been fully debated by the US Congress or the American public, yet the powers that be, which are pushing the SPP, North American Union, North American Community, or whatever you want to call it, are the same interest groups pushing for most illegal aliens to stay in American and be placed in the FRT database with all law abiding Americans.

So, yes we believe that Homeland Security is angry with the New Haven officials, but not for violating Federal Law and aiding illegal aliens.

We believe that Homeland Security and the Bush administration are angry with the New Haven officials for launching the prototype biometric ID system for all Americans and illegal aliens, BEFORE the AMNESTY bill was voted into law.

By exposing this plan, New Haven runs the risk of being overrun with illegal aliens causing them to have to cancel the program and creating a setback for the SPP / NAU planners.

By launching this prototype plan before the illegal aliens have been turned into legal Guest Workers, New Haven has shown the country a card that was not to be exposed until other tenets of the plan were in place.

Homeland Security is trying to create a deterrent for illegal aliens so they will NOT GO TO NEW HAVEN because if they do and in large numbers, New Haven will look like the disaster areas they created in other parts of our nation.

Let's send those illegals to New Haven and let us all do our best to throw down this dastardly plan to integrate the economies of this continent against the existing laws, the US Constitution, and the will of the American public!

Let us stand together against Big Brother, Real ID, FRT and biometrics. Why should American citizens give the government more knowledge and power over us, when they are clearly failing to enforce our existing laws and do not have the best interests of the public or the will of the American majority in mind?

Monday, July 23, 2007

Executive Privilege Über Alles

Executive Privilege Über Alles

Chris Floyd
Lew Rockwell.com
Saturday July 21, 2007

Just in case you haven't noticed before, the United States of America has become a presidential tyranny. We've been clanging this bell here (and elsewhere) since late September 2001, and have seen it confirmed over and over through the years – with torture edicts, domestic spying, rendition, secret prisons, indefinite detention of uncharged, untried captives, etc. – and most recently and most baldly with the "Military Commissions Act," which enshrined the principle of arbitrary presidential power in law and gutted the ancient privilege of habeas corpus. This was rubberstamped by the Republican-led Congress last year – and is still standing strong under the Democratic-led Congress.
But now the Bush Regime has taken an even more brazen step into the light with its frankly fascist doctrine of the "Unitary Executive." As the Washington Post reports, the Administration's legal perverts are getting ready to claim – openly, officially – that the president's arbitrary will transcends every law in the land, every section of the Constitution. All he need do is arbitrarily assert "executive privilege" over any operation of government whatsoever to remove it beyond the reach of any legal action, Congressional inquiry – or criminal investigation. As Atrios notes, Bush has already arrogated to himself the "right" to interpret the law, through the "signing statements" he attaches to the bills he signs, declaring that he will obey only those strictures of the law that he sees fit. Now, the Administration is declaring that Bush need not be bound even by those laws he does deign to acknowledge. As the Post reports:
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege...
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege...
Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."
"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
This new authoritarian claim grows out of the Congressional investigation of the illegal politicization of the Justice Department – and the many instances of perjury that the investigation has produced, as Bush's legal perverts twisted, squirmed and lied outright under oath. Bush is frantically seeking to keep his top perverts – such as Harriet Miers, the loyal factotum who wiped the dribble from Junior's jim-jams and handed him the state papers he didn't read (i.e., "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.," etc.) – from testifying before Congress about the White House machinations to fire U.S. attorneys for failing to file bogus cases against targeted enemies of the Leader. The slimy trail of this scheme leads straight to Bush's main minder, Karl Rove. Bush has already demonstrated that he is prepared to sacrifice anything – including the nation's chief undercover operation against the spread of nuclear weapons – to shield his porcine puppeteer. So the new assertion of authoritarian power – yet another slashing knife attack on the dying body of the Constitutional Republic – is small potatoes for this thug.
Yet the assertion, when it comes, will be an important step forward in the revolutionary remaking of the American state that the Bush Regime launched with its judicial coup in 2000. For note well, this "breathtaking" assertion – that Bush can stop any investigation of government wrongdoing simply by claiming "executive privilege" – is not based on Bush's role as "commander-in-chief in wartime," which has been the perverted basis of previous edicts licensing torture, rendition, indefinite detention, unrestricted domestic eavesdropping and the whole sinister schmeer of Bush's Terror War policies. Even this false "justification" – "stern but temporary measures taken as a military necessity while the nation is in peril" – is missing in the new assertion. The new power is seen as a permanent right of the head of the executive branch: an entirely new structural role for the president, who clearly stands above legislative oversight, judicial restraint and the laws of the land.
There is nothing "temporary" about this claim. (Of course, in practice, there is nothing "temporary" about Bush's authoritarian "Commander" powers either, since he claims the "war" which justifies them will go on for decades, perhaps generations; but theoretically at least, these "wartime" powers have a time limit.) Bush is saying that any action taken by the federal government can be cloaked by "executive privilege" as a matter of course, not as a wartime exigency. The Regime has once again – and very deliberately – provoked a constitutional crisis of the highest order. They are very clear about what they are doing. They are overthrowing the laws, traditions and constitutional structures that have maintained the American republic – imperfectly but steadily – for more than 200 years. (As John Gray notes in his new book, Black Mass, the basic structure of the American system has undergone almost no fundamental change since the adoption of the Constitution, unlike the systems of almost every other state around the globe, including such bastions of tradition like the UK; indeed, says Gray, with the possible exception of Switzerland, the United States could claim to be the oldest government in the world.)
The Bush-Cheney regime wants to change all that – and has been changing it, from the very beginning. They believe that the time for democracy and the rule of law has passed. Constitutional government and legal accountability are "quaint notions" that can no longer be indulged by a massive state with "responsibilities" for managing the affairs of the entire world – and a myriad of "enemies" challenging this benign domination. Only a Leader-state – run by a small, secretive cadre of dedicated elites able to operate beyond any restraints of law or outside supervision or public consent – is supple enough to deal with the duties and challenges faced by the "world's only hyperpower." This is their vision of government. It is a radical transformation, in both substance and structure, from what we have known before. It is authoritarian. It is arbitrary. It is ruthless, corrupt, brutal and vile, but because it is clothed in modern garb, in business suits, PR-packaged, slick and airbrushed, we don't see it for the barbaric throwback that it is. As I wrote in November 2001:
It won't come with jackboots and book burnings, with mass rallies and fevered harangues. It won't come with "black helicopters" or tanks on the street. It won't come like a storm – but like a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality has taken its place.

To be sure, there will be factional conflicts among this elite, and a degree of free debate will be permitted, within limits; but no one outside the privileged circle will be allowed to govern or influence state policy. Dissidents will be marginalized – usually by "the people" themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by an impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, not thoughtful citizens, and left ignorant of current events by a media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly. There will be little need for overt methods of control.

The rulers will often act in secret; for reasons of "national security," the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name. Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, the murder of "enemies" selected by the leader, undeclared war, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new "security structures" targeted at the populace. In time, all this will come to seem "normal," as the chill of autumn feels normal when summer is gone.
We are already living in that new reality. And the Democratic-led Congress has shown no sign of recognizing the seriousness of the situation. They refuse to assert the powers given to them by the Constitution for redress of executive tyranny. Not only have they taken impeachment "off the table" (while keeping war – even nuclear war – against Iran "on the table"), but even in the impasse over the subpoenas for Bush's legal perverts, they are refusing to use the legal powers they possess to compel obedience to the law. As the Post notes:
Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.
Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.
No, these Democrats definitely have no appetite for concrete action – as opposed to pointless stunts like their all-nighter over their "anti-war" measure that would actually guarantee the long-term presence of a substantial American force in Iraq – which was of course one of the chief aims of Bush's invasion in the first place. (Sean O'Neill makes quick work of this ludicrous carnival here.) Their most likely response to this latest authoritarian power grab will be weeks of hand-wringing fulmination followed by months, if not years, of court action, as the matter winds its way slowly to the waiting arms of a Supreme Court dominated by Bushist apparatchiks. Meanwhile, the authoritarian regime will roll on, growing ever more entrenched, more emboldened and more radical. By the time this particular manifestation of the Bush tyranny is adjudicated, we will almost certainly be hip-deep in war with Iran – or under martial law following another terrorist attack (of whatever provenance) – or perhaps both.
And if you think this prognostication is too grim, too unlikely, or too exaggerated, then you have been sleepwalking through the last six years.