Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Fascism USA?

OMNI NEWSLETTER ON FASCISM #1, January 10, 2012.   Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace

Here is the link to all OMNI newsletters:


Contents #1
Characteristics of Fascism
Essence of Fascism
Chomsky:   Fascism in USA?
Book to Film:The End of America: 10 Steps to Fascism
Militarism USA
Preparations for Martial Law
US Army vs. Posse Comitatus
Internet Control

  “Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism”     By Lawrence Britt
      Free Inquiry Magazine  ("Fascism Anyone?," Spring 2003, page 20)

Ideologies of War Newsletter to jbennet
by Richard Koenigsberg of Modernism & Fascism: The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and Fascism by Roger Griffin
ROGER GRIFFIN, Professor in Modern History at Oxford Brookes University, is considered one of the world’s leading authorities on Fascism. In Modernism & Fascism, Griffin describes how modernisms’ roots lay in the human need to perceive a transcendent meaning—and to restore purpose in times of social breakdown. . . .
"This is an extraordinary book, the most important to appear on the history of fascism in a decade or more..."—Stanley G. Payne, author of A History of Fascism, 1914-1945'

Based on comprehensive research conveyed in numerous books and papers, Roger Griffin has developed a generic theory of fascism. He claims to have identified a core myth that lies at the root of various historical instances. One may say that at certain times in certain societies this myth is enacted.
Fascist ideology, Griffin finds, revolves around the vision of a nation being capable of “imminent phoenix like rebirth” from a crisis. The quest for rebirth gives rise to a revolutionary new political and cultural order that embraces “all of the ‘true’ members of the national community.” Fascism, in short, constitutes a radical form of nationalism growing out of the perception that one’s country is in imminent danger. Fascism seeks resurrection of one’s nation.

Griffin calls fascism an “identificatory ideology” encouraging “total symbiosis with the ideological community.” Rudolf Hess introduced his Fuhrer by declaring “Hitler is Germany, just as Germany is Hitler.” Within fascist ideology, however, it is expected that not only the leader, but each and every individual will seek fusion or merger with the nation. Fascism encourages the individual, Griffin says, to “subsume his or her personality within the greater whole of the national community.” The creation of a “charismatic national community” is the ultimate goal of fascism.
Griffin observes that the enormous destructive power of fascism arises out of the “concept of the nation as an organic entity. . . .
Griffin finds that the other side of the coin of the belief that the nation is an organic entity—and the desire to maintain the life of this organism—is belief that the nation is beset by forces that threaten to “extinguish the nation forever.” Without “drastic intervention by the forces of healthy nationalism,” the nation might fade away or die. Fascism is revolutionary nationalism seeking to prevent the death of one’s country.
Hitler odyssey began with such a belief—that his nation was in mortal danger—on the verge of death. He claimed that the German people found itself in the midst of a “process of dissolution” and spoke of the “rapidly falling to pieces of the organic structure of the nation.” Fascism, one might say, seeks to put humpty dumpty back together again.
Fascism often is bound to racism, but what exactly does this mean? The Other is identified as the cause or source of the nation’s decline. If actions are not taken to thwart the destructive Other, the nation might die. Hitler wrote and spoke continually about the Jew as a “ferment of decomposition” and “disintegrator of peoples.” If Germany was to survive, it was necessary to “bar the spread of the process of disintegration” by establishing a “separation between the two races.” Only by overcoming the Jewish ferment of decomposition, Hitler said, could the nation “rise again.”
Hitler declared that the objective of National Socialism was to “maintain the life of the people,” that is, to “prevent our Germany from suffering, as Another did, the death upon the cross.” Hitler acknowledged that in order to achieve the tasks set before him, it might be necessary to engage in forms of behavior ordinarily considered immoral. But he did not flinch, proclaiming: “We may be inhumane, but if we rescue Germany then we have achieved the greatest deed in the world.
This statement captures the essence of Fascism—allowing us to understand why Fascism and violence are inextricably linked. Fascism revolves around the struggle to rescue one nation from death—a demise that seems imminent. In order to save one’s nation, one must perform acts of violence whose purpose is to eliminate or destroy malignant Others identified as threatening the nation’s life. The resurrection of one’s nation requires eradication of these enemies.
What distinguishes Fascism from ordinary nationalism is the level of threat experienced and conveyed by the leaders of Fascist movements. Hitler identified an attack leveled “against the very substance of peoples, against their internal organization.” This attack, he said, was so embracing that it drew into the field of its action “almost all the functions of life, while no one can tell how long this fight may last.” Only rarely, Hitler proclaimed, did peoples suffer from such convulsions that the “deepest foundations of the social order are shaken and threatened with destruction.” Out of such perceptions or imaginings do Fascist movements arise: seeking to confront and overcome the dangers in order to rescue the life of the nation.
This message was sent to jbennet@uark.edu from:
9230 56th Ave, Suite 3E
| Elmhurst, NY 11373

Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive
Noam Chomsky, the leading left-wing intellectual, warned last week that fascism may be coming to the United States.


Dear CCR Supporter,
We are excited to announce the web release of "THE END OF AMERICA" - a feature-length documentary based on Naomi Wolf's bestselling book of the same name - this coming Tuesday, October 21. Our own Michael Ratner and Maria LaHood as well as our client Maher Arar are featured, and CCR is privileged to partner in the online premiere of this powerful and provocative film.
Naomi Wolf, a long-time supporter and ally of CCR, set out on a national tour over the past year to discuss the evolution of America from a functional democracy into a closed, fear-driven society with a terrifying absence of due process. She lays out what she calls the 10 steps necessary to end a democracy and shows us just how close we are to completing them:
  1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
  2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
  3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
  4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
  5. Harass citizens' groups.
  6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
  7. Target key individuals.
  8. Control the press.
  9. Treat all political dissents as traitors.
  10. Suspend the rule of law.
In her film, Naomi Wolf makes a plea for Americans to stand up and fight for our most cherished rights. One thing you can do is check out our new 100 Days Campaign (with this link) and stay tuned for ways to get involved in telling the next administration what they must to do to restore, protect and expand our constitutional rights.
You can also screen THE END OF AMERICA for your friends and neighbors one of two ways - you have a unique opportunity to get a copy of the film now before it hits stores in early 2009. Host a free public screening of the film before November 4, 2008 and they'll provide you with a free DVD. Show it at school, work or place of worship; take it to your local coffee shop or bar; urge organizations you're a member of to host a free screening. They'll send you posters and postcards to promote your event. For more information contact myamerica@katahdinproductions.com. You can also support the project by purchasing a special Election Edition DVD, available to Center for Constitutional Rights members through this indiepix films on-line store link.
Stay tuned for an email next week with details of how to view THE END OF AMERICA online this Tuesday.
Annette Dickerson
Director of Education and Outreach

This email was sent to the address: jbennet@uark.edu.
Click here to unsubscribe from CCR Emails.

Center for Constitutional Rights ll 666 Broadway 7th floor NY, NY 10012 ll 212-614-6464 ll www.ccrjustice.org

Below:   Tomgram: Michael Klare, Energy Wars 2012
Posted by Michael Klare at 9:37am, January 10, 2012.
Tom Engelhardt (Tomgram):   Last week, the president made a rare appearance at the Pentagon to unveil a new strategic plan for U.S. military policy (and so spending) over the next decade.  Let’s leave the specifics to a future TomDispatch post and focus instead on a historical footnote: Obama was evidently the first president to offer remarks from a podium in the Pentagon press room.  He made the point himself -- “I understand this is the first time a president has done this.  It’s a pretty nice room.  (Laughter)” -- and it was duly noted in the media.  Yet no one thought to make anything of it, even though it tells us so much about our American world.
After all, when was the last time the president appeared at a podium at the Environmental Protection Agency to announce a 10-year plan for a “leaner, meaner” approach to the environment, or at the Education Department to outline the next decade of blue-skies thinking (and spending) for giving our children a leg-up in a competitive world?  Or how about at a State Department podium to describe future planning for a more peaceable planet more peaceably attained?  Unfortunately, you can’t remember such moments and neither can America’s reporters, because they just aren’t part of Washington life.  And strangest of all, no one finds this the tiniest bit odd or worth commenting on. 
Over the last decade, this country has been so strikingly militarized that no one can imagine 10 years of serious government planning or investment not connected to the military or the national security state.  It’s a dangerous world out there -- so we’re regularly told by officials who don’t mention that no military is built to handle the scariest things around.  War and the sinews of war are now our business and the U.S. military is our go-to outfit of choice for anything from humanitarian action to diplomacy (even though that same military can’t do the one thing it’s theoretically built to do: win a modern war). And if you don’t believe me that the militarization of this country is a process far gone, check out the last pages of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent piece, “America’s Pacific Century,” in Foreign Policy magazine.  Then close your eyes and tell me that it wasn’t written by a secretary of defense, rather than a secretary of state -- right down to the details about the “littoral combat ships” we’re planning to deploy to Singapore and the “greater American military presence” in Australia.
Of course, the irony of this American moment is that the Republicans, those supposed advocates of “small government,” are the greatest fans we have of the ever increasing oppressive powers of the biggest of governments.  In recent years, have they seen a single enhanced power they didn’t put their stamp of approval on or enhance further? Predictably, no sooner did the president’s Pentagon press briefing end than assorted Republicans began attacking Obama and his relatively modest Pentagon plan for reshuffling military funds -- from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (“a lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America”) and Senator John McCain (“greatest peril”) to presidential candidate Mitt Romney (“inexcusable, unthinkable”) -- as if it were a program for unilateral disarmament.
So when the U.S. faces a problem in the world -- say, keeping the energy flowing on this planet -- the first thing that’s done is to militarize the problem.  It’s the only way Washington now knows how to think.  As Michael Klare -- whose upcoming book The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources will certainly be a must-read of the season -- makes clear, a further militarization of oil and gas policy is underway with an eye to the Pacific, and we have another anxious year on the horizon. (To catch Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Klare discusses the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, click here, or download it to your iPod here.) Tom
“Danger Waters:  The Three Top Hot Spots of Potential Conflict in the Geo-Energy Era”   By Michael T. Klare
Welcome to an edgy world where a single incident at an energy “chokepoint” could set a region aflame, provoking bloody encounters, boosting oil prices, and putting the global economy at risk.  With energy demand on the rise and sources of supply dwindling, we are, in fact, entering a new epoch -- the Geo-Energy Era -- in which disputes over vital resources will dominate world affairs.  In 2012 and beyond, energy and conflict will be bound ever more tightly together, lending increasing importance to the key geographical flashpoints in our resource-constrained world.

Vaslett:   It's been a long slide to tyranny, but now, the setup is almost complete.   Here is a good rundown of the laws, presidential signings, plans, and detention camps put together by a program host at KPFK (Pacifica Radio) in Los Angeles. I think this should make it very clear.

“One Step Guide to Martial Law”
Written By: Cary Harrison   January 4, 2012
Reality Check with Harrison  Pres. Obama Signs Ground-breaking Unlimited Detention Law for US Citizens by Cary Harrison

While this handy one-sheeter isn’t entirely comprehensive, it is intended to offer a quick highlight reel of laws and presidential directives capable of triggering martial law. Keep in mind, the loss of Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus, coupled with a new definition of “torture” are just the tip of the prickly authoritarian iceberg.
Equally, through July 11, 2006, George W. Bush had enacted 807 presidential signing statements negating or reversing, by fiat, specific provisions in Congressional Bills signed by him. This volume, in those short 5½ years of initial presidency, dwarf that of any other president in U.S. history. In fact, it is greater than all previous forty-one presidents combined, whose signing statements totaled slightly fewer than 600. Both the frequency and tone of Bush’s statements have been the cause of much legal concern as they allow, at his pleasure, much of US law and the Constitution to be ignored or circumvented.
In fact, on July 24, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued the report of a Blue-Ribbon Task Force on Bush’s signing statements that concluded:
“Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers… To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President’s right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional”.

“Bush tells U.S. Supreme Court: Manual vote recounts violate U.S. Constitution,” –CNN, November 23, 2000. Stealing the 2000 presidential election in Florida (with the help of Florida’s Secretary of State Katherine Harris (co-chair of the Florida Bush Election Campaign) plus five regressive Supreme Court Justices appointed by Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I.
Organization of the National Security Council System (February 13, 2001) This is the first in a series of National Security Presidential Directives that “…shall replace [all previous US Presidents’] Presidential Decision Directives and Presidential Review Directives as an instrument for communicating presidential decisions about the national security policies of the United States. The NSC shall meet at my direction. When I am absent from a meeting of the NSC, at my direction the Vice President may preside.”
9-11 Attacks (September 11, 2001) Pres. Bush had been warned numerous times since Jan. 2001.
GWOT – Global war on Terror The Bush-Cheney officially-declared policy: “You’re either with us, or with the terrorists!”
Patriot Act I The stated purpose of USA Patriot Act (USAPA) PUBLIC LAW 107-56 (H.R. 3162) passed by Congress on October 25, 2001, was the Uniting and Strengthening [of] America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. Additionally, the Act was intended to “deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.”Compare to: The Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (Reichstag Fire Decree), Germany, February 28, 1933
Presidential Executive Order 12958 (March 25, 2003), The National Security Agency (NSA) may read any email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. “Throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nations security remains a priority.”
U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy [Supersedes Presidential Decision Directive 23] (April 25, 2003) The fundamental goal of this policy is to advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by maintaining the nation’s leadership in “remote sensing” space activities, and by sustaining and enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry. United States Government use of commercial remote sensing space capabilities.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive/Hspd-6 Integration and Use of Screening Information (September 16, 2003) “…to (1) develop, integrate, and maintain thorough, accurate, and current information about individuals known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism; and (2) use that information as appropriate and to the full extent permitted by law to support (a) Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, foreign-government, and private-sector screening processes, and (b) diplomatic, military, intelligence, law enforcement, immigration, visa, and protective processes.
Bush Signs Bill Expanding FBI Authority (December 14, 2003) AP: “The bill expands the number of businesses from which the FBI and other U.S. authorities conducting intelligence work can demand financial records without seeking court approval. … Under current law, ‘national security letters’ can be issued to traditional financial institutions, such as banks and credit unions, to require them to turn over information. The bill expands the definition of financial institution to include other businesses that deal with large amounts of cash.”
2004 Presidential Election Widely believed to have been stolen using the critical election state of Ohio, with full complicity of Ohio’s Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, also the co-chair of the “Committee to re-elect George W. Bush”.
2004 Authorization Bill for Intelligence Agencies, (Nov. 19, 2004) The measure gives the Federal Bureau of Investigation greater authority to demand records from businesses in terrorism cases without the approval of a judge or a grand jury. While banks, credit unions and other financial institutions are currently subject to such demands, the measure expands the list to include car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, casinos and other businesses
Patriot Act II – USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 Presidential Signing Statement The “President’s Statement on H.R. 3199, the ‘USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005′”: “The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A [ p.10 ] and 119 [ p.29 ], in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.
Homeland Security contract to KBR (January 24, 2006) for construction of “detention centers” across the U.S. Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) announced it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build detention camps in the United States. In 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his desire to see camps for U.S. citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants.” On February 17, 2006, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the harm being done to the country’s security, not just by the enemy, but also by what he called “news informers” who needed to be combated in “a contest of wills.” According to a press release posted on the Halliburton website, “The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention and Removal Operations (DRO), or to support the rapid development of new programs. Jamie Zuieback, spokeswoman for ICE, declined to elaborate on what these “new programs” might be.
A comprehensive list of existing detention locations at end of page…
(Oliver North’s famous exercise (FEMA AND THE REX 84 PROGRAM), which practiced suspension of the Constitution, led to a line of questioning during the Iran-Contra Hearings concerning the idea that plans for expanded internment and detention facilities would not be confined to “refugees” alone. And since September 11, the Bush administration has implemented a number of interrelated programs that were planned in the 1980s under President Reagan. Continuity of Government (COG) proposals—a classified plan for keeping a secret “government-within-the-government” running during and after a nuclear disaster—included vastly expanded detention capabilities, warrantless eavesdropping, and preparations for use of martial law. Reagan-era COG planning included Cheney and Rumsfeld (Rumsfeld, now a highly-paid Defense Department primary “consultant”) both remain largely in control of the U.S. government today.)
National Security Presidential Directive-46/Homeland Security Presidential Directive-15. (March 8, 2006) Also referred to as the “War on Terror” directive, it reflects a desire by the White House to better orchestrate activities across a wide range of bureaucratic jurisdictions — including diplomatic, legal, financial and military. Fred Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment on the new decree, citing a White House policy of not discussing classified directives.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD 15 U.S. Strategy and Policy in the War on Terror (classified directive) (March 6, 2006) Centralizes power to the National Counterterrorism Center, headed by Adm. Scott Redd, to make sure each entity does what it has been ordered to do, fusing intelligence from all the disparate U.S. intelligence and law enforcement entities and conducting “strategic operational planning” across all agencies to ensure there is a common plan. No further information available.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Just two weeks prior to the 2006 midterm elections, Congress passed legislation that permitted the administration to detain, at its own discretion, anyone the executive branch – specifically, Mr. Bush as the commander in chief – deemed to be a terrorist. Once the law was signed by Mr. Bush, both Congress and the commander in chief were on record as agreeing habeas corpus was another quaint and expendable formality. That was rather convenient and timely for the White House because it was becoming increasingly apparent by that time the administration had been sanctioning, even directing, illegal detentions for at least three years before Congress obliged them by providing after-the-fact, retroactive legal cover.
****John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (September 30, 2006) Empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident” or if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order” or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law–under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration. It took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to destroy one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the permission of Congress. But there was a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government’s ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs.
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51. National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 & Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20 ***National Continuity Policy*** (May 9, 2007) Declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, the entire government is immediately taken over and sole power is given over to the Executive Branch, led by George W. Bush: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.” This directive, given no scrutiny by Congress, gives the White House literal control over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and purging all remaining separation of powers. The directive also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of all domestic “Security”.
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq, (Tuesday 17 July 2007) “It is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004.” This order empowers/instructs “… officers and agencies of the United States Government …” to assist in its enforcement, ultimately judgment is rendered to members of the executive branch, each of whom serves at the pleasure of Mr. Bush. Since the order seeks to circumvent both judicial and Congressional oversight, it renders unto the executive branch, and ultimately Mr. Bush, absolute power of law.
Executive Order #13422 – Total Control Over Agencies (Feb. 01, 2007) Federal regulators will answer to a new set of Bush Political appointees in each agency, who will determine whether their proposed rules properly serve the Bush agenda. As Peter Strauss of the Columbia Law School told the New York Times, “Having lost control of Congress, the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.” Bush’s administrative power grab points to a serious flaw in the American system: our uniquely powerful, politically unaccountable executive.
InfraGard (2007) 23,000 Businesspeople Get Threat Info from FBI Before Public. In Turn, They Supply Tips to FBI. Two Members of Private Sector Group Say They Have “Shoot to Kill” Permission in Emergency. Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law.
HR 1955: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 has a subheading even more frightening: “To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.” What other purposes? This bill, sponsored by Bush Ally—California Democratic Congresswoman, Jane Harmon, was passed by 94% of Congress—the majority of which, sadly, are Democrats. And it says specifically, quote: `(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.” Here’s the rub… by purposefully not suggesting that the Internet propaganda is coming from overseas… our Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act… or… Thought Crime Prevention Act’ focuses not on stereotypical shadowy Muslim figures… or even gun-totin’ Timothy McVeigh-types. This bill, already percolating in the Senate, looks to be aimed at the ever-increasing progressive and Constitutional protectionist movement. Representative Jane Harman, its prime sponsor, was one notable Democrat who was privy to Bush Administration torture information in 2002. Its Senate counterpart, S. 1959, is still in committee.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD 23 (January 8, 2008) Computer Network Monitoring And Cyber-Security $6 billion built a secretive system monitoring all U.S. communication networks, including all telephone, email, texting, video, Internet, chat, and the capability to record all keyboard strokes as citizens’ type personal documents in their homes.
Federal 4th Circuit Appeals Court gives the president sweeping power to deprive anyone — citizens as well as noncitizens — of their freedom. The designation “enemy combatant,” which should apply only to people captured on a battlefield, can now be applied to ANY people detained inside the United States.
National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD – 59 & Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD – 24 ”Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security” (June 5, 2008) Directed against US citizens and adopted without public debate or Congressional approval. Info on the private lives of each citizens in minute detail. The directive uses 9/11 as an all-encompassing justification to compile blood-type, DNA, physical & medical data, and face and eye-recognition technology against citizens. The stated intent of NSPD 59 is to protect America from terrorists, but in fact the terms of reference include any person who is deemed to pose a threat to the Homeland. Beyond biometric data is “contextual data” including information on date and place of birth, citizenship, current address and address history, current employment and employment history, school report cards, current phone numbers and phone number history, complete history of all items purchased in grocery and hardware stores, video rentals (commercial and porn), Internet purchases and all variations of Websites browsed, use of government services and tax filings, bank account and credit card histories, criminal database records on a local, state, and federal levels, legal judgments or other public records documenting involvement in legal disputes, child custody records, and marriage or divorce records.
Heroes Act of 2008, passed by Congress June 17, 2008. Stops your money — or at least a good portion of it — at the border, should you decide to flee the US. (The headlines in the press release about the law were about the increased benefits for veterans and families of deceased military). Anyone voluntarily giving up his or her citizenship will be taxed on ALL of his assets as if he or she had sold them.
FISA “Reform” Act (not only granted retroactive AND FUTURE immunity to telecoms for their complicity in Bush’s violations of the original FISA Law, but also, implicitly, to Bush, as well as gutting the Fourth Amendment guarantee of privacy).
Homeland Security Directive: Travelers’ Laptops May Be Detained At Border. (July 16, 2008) No suspicion required under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies. Federal agents can take a traveler’s laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed. Also, officials can send copies of any American citizen’s laptop contents with other agencies and private entities for “language translation, data decryption or other reasons”, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
10990 Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.
10995 Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
10997 Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
10998 Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
11000 Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
11001 Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.
11002 Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.
11003 Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
11004 Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
11005 Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
11051 Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
11310 Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
11049 Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
11921 Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and flow of money in the U.S.A. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
Proposed: House Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 24), 109th Congress: “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution,” February 17, 2005. Repeal would remove the two-term limit on the Bush Presidency. (Introduced by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (R-MD); Co-Sponsors (4): Reps. Howard L. Berman, Howard L. (CA), Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ), Martin Olav Sabo (MN), and F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI). Status: April 4, 2005, referred to House Subcommittee on the Constitution.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,’ Bush screamed back. ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!’ –Reported in Capitol Hill Blue, December 9, 2005.

Many locations were verified by William Pabst’s research and testimony of Provost Marshal, US 5th Army HQ, Pentagon; and Mr. Fennerin, 300th Army MP. . . .

First army unit assigned to permanent duty for civil unrest and crowd control (Democracy Now 9-22-08).
Pros. Attorney Charlotte Dennett will indict Bush for crimes if she is elected; see Bugliosi.  (also DN 9-22).

Timothy Vaslett via uark.edu
As we have  all been discovering these last few years the internet has become an immensely powerful tool that makes available, instantaneously, around the world any and all events, real news, histories that have been heretofore unavailable, exposes of abuse and wrongdoing by governments, police, and military, etc.   You can bet the shadow elite want this stopped NOW!  Below are a few links to information on this matter.





No comments: