Earlier this week, ‘we the people’, experienced a challenge, that may long be remembered as the tipping moment in US history. After a year of hope and doubt and fervent opposition, a national health care bill, was passed by Congress and became a law, whereby we became the last of the world’s industrial nations to guarantee adequate healthcare for each person. There were no losers, no revolution. Opposition leaders had expected their strategic efforts to shape a tide of public opinion that would kill the bill.
After Congress voted the bill into law, the opponents in Congress and the thousands of opposition voices throughout the land were quiet. The members of Congress and members of the public who supported the new law were thrilled, but they respected the opponents. It was as if Americans on both sides of the issue had realized that humanity’s Creator had truly endowed each of us to understand that we are the government, that it is up to us to secure each American’s right to a healthy life; one that will give us the willingness to make the effort to pursue our happiness.
It was as if many of us had begun to realize that an awesome task lies ahead that will claim our attention and require our individual efforts to shape our government to achieve the vision of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
I anticipated the disappointment that many opponents would likely feel if the bill passed. I had experienced the emotion of being on the losing side many times in my life and understood what many losers in this Congressional duel would likely experience. For several preceding months, I had watched the struggle develop, concerning the issues of the bill. I read and listened to the discussions of the bill on the news and views of the Internet. The temper of the opponents threatened Congress if it failed to oppose the bill.
I had been thinking that a healing of feelings was needed now for many people in the US who had supported the losing side in the vote. It so happened, that one of my emails offered a website address that presented about a hundred performances of famous musical artists, including some of my favorites. I had recently written a post that noted our need to find the good things about the new law and the need for all of us to help the bill succeed in improving our right to adequate health care in America.
Lo and behold, somehow, I came to this website, listed below.
It contains 100 great Johnny Mercer tunes; including “Accentuate the Positive”. In fact, there were three great versions of that tune by different artists. The one that impressed me most is the easiest to find. Click on the link below. I’ll bet a hole in a doughnut that it will fill your spirit with the emotional high that will help you confidently build your pursuit of happiness. I bet you will also replay it, at least once.
After 60 years, might this law work for all of us ?
The healthcare bill has passed in Congress, and all the efforts of the conservative right to defeat the bill failed to persuade enough members of Congress to kill the bill.
The Republicans had hoped to defeat the bill, elect a Republican majority in Congress in 2010, and then defeat Obama in the 2012 election.
Since the first step in that plan failed, it should be worth asking what aroused the opposition to the bill in the past 14 months.
If my neighbor were to ask me to answer that question, I would list in the order of importance the concerns that I heard on TV news or read on Internet websites.
Number one seemed to be the loss of freedom to choose your doctor or health provider. Second seemed to be a concern that increased taxes would be required to cover the healthcare costs of millions of Americans and new immigrants who have no healthcare insurance. Third seemed to be the widespread objection to include coverage for abortions. Fourth seemed to be the widespread concern of senior citizens that they would be denied appropriate healthcare when they needed it, and they would be required to adhere to a plan that would arrange for their death.
There were probably other issues, such as the quality of special care that might not be available. Some opponents feel the law would prevent the freedom of doctors to decide which treatment would be best. Some opponents worry about the treatment for newborns. Many people fear that a multitude of illegal immigrants would be covered at the expense of taxpayers. Some expect the possible refusal of doctors to participate in the national healthcare plan. There are other situations that could be included, but for this article, I am unfortunately limited to what comes to mind.
The fear of increased taxes to cover the health care plan seems to be based, not on the cost of the treatment that you or I would require, but on the cost of treatment required by immigrants. That seems to be a valid point, but reality suggests that our own newborn children and our adolescents might require significant treatments that also cost, but are not treated because parents can’t afford such treatments. That includes those 30 or 40 million Americans who are not covered by health insurance.
Which brings us to the third expense, the process of medical abortions. The religious condemnation of abortion is well founded and has been widely explained. The issue centers on the fact that killing unborn children is a moral crime. Execution of an adult has been acceptable for many pro-life people because they believe adults are responsible for their deeds, whereas an unborn child is not guilty of anything.
Abortion is used to avoid the sexual responsibility of women and their partners who cannot or do not choose to rear the unborn child after its birth. Various reasons to justify abortion exist but most are based on the inconvenience that a baby would bring to the potential mother or father. Some use it as a method of contraception. The claim of a woman to a right to choose the birth or the death of an unborn child has been approved by the Supreme Court decision, in opposition to the teachings of Biblical scriptures.
The realization that the taxes of pro-lifers will be used to fund abortions may be a key point of opposition. Many if not most abortions are committed on low or no income racial minority women. It has been claimed that irresponsible sexual behavior causes those abortions, and those women should have used contraception to prevent their conceptions. The fact that tax money of non-minority taxpayers will fund such abortions seems to be a main cause of their anger, rather than a concern for the sacredness of the life of unborn children of racial minority women.
Which brings to mind the options that exist or should exist for supporting the unwed mothers with appropriate care. Some such services do exist through private organizations and some adoption services arrange to find parents for unwanted newborn children.
It might be possible for Congress to add a provision to the new healthcare law that would offer applicants for abortions the opportunity to have the personal living costs of a pregnant woman be borne by the government, during the time of their pregnancy, if she were to choose to give birth instead of abortion. Support for such a provision would validate the claim of pro-life advocates and would provide babies for adoption by infertile couples. It would solve the dilemma of women who mistakenly become pregnant and have no means to support a newborn child.
It is evident that the legitimate concern of senior citizens is that, they will probably need assisted healthcare at some time, which is expensive and unaffordable for those with limited retirement income. The need for healthcare increases as we get old and the consequences of our lifestyles tend to appear at that time. The proof that good lifestyles may avoid costly medical care has been proven, but lifestyles are not prescribed by law, and our concept of personal freedom claims a right to eat what we want, practice activities that we want, and follow diets that we want. Many of us do just that rather than what has been proven by social and medical advisors to support healthy outcomes.
Here, too, a right seems to exist in our belief that we can behave in whatever way we choose to treat our health. The truth is that as we grow older the probability of needing assisted medical care is a genuine reality, whether our age is sixty or one hundred. When we are young and robust, we seem to act as though we are not vulnerable and we expect our prime of life will last without end. But, realistically after the wedding bells of our mature youth have ended, the factual insights creep into the back of our mind and we realize that our strength and handsome traits are gradually diminishing.
So, what can we expect and hope will result with the healthcare law? Some commentators claim our lives will be grim or even ruined and dominated by a totalitarian government, which will electronically control every part of our lives. That might be possible, if we the people allow our government to become destructive of our rights.
We need to watch how the new law is practiced. That will take time because the provisions of the law will need to be implemented in relation to the people it will serve. There are many uncertain aspects that need to be clarified when it comes to day-by-day practice. Some things will be found to be non-binding, some nonessential, others nonfunctional or maybe non-legal. It will require changes that were not anticipated. We will need to be patient. Good things will emerge; bad procedures will need to be replaced with good policies.
Instead of this law causing the end of American freedom, it may be a step in recovering our unalienable right to have government serve the purpose that was described in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these (unalienable) rights, Governments are instituted among men.”
If we successfully arrange our government to serve our right to healthcare, then we can also successfully arrange our government to secure what is appropriate to serve our unalienable right to pursue happiness. What will that require?
To accomplish that, we might do well to remember the advice in Luke 6:31,
“As you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise.”
During the preceding months of commentary about “the Health Care bill”, we frequently heard mention of the millions of Americans that are not covered by health insurance. We may be amiss, but wasn’t it shown that important questions had not been answered by our present medical system?
Did 30 or 40 million Americans have no health insurance coverage?
Did half of all Americans, who had health insurance, not have adequate coverage for their health care needs?
Did Insurance plans refuse to cover Americans who had preceding health problems?
Was the treatment of healthcare needs unavailable for unemployed American adults and their minor-age children?
At the same time, did some patriotic Americans hold a reverence for freedom that applied to illness and accidental injuries, such as the freedom to suffer, freedom to go bankrupt by unprecedented health care costs, freedom to become infected with preventable environmental contaminants in energy production, public water sources, food products, hazardous wastes, and industrial sewage and air pollution?
Some health care bill opponents state that America’s high tech medical culture impacts, maybe a third or more of America’s economy in one way or another. That, apparently, convinces them to oppose the use of the ‘self-executing rule’ by Democrats in Congress because the ‘self-executing rule’ should not be used for important legislation and healthcare affects a third of the US economy. Evidence shows that the same ‘self-executing rule’ has been used many times before in Congress going back a hundred years or more, for various purposes by Republicans and Democrats.
Which brings to mind a comparison of the health care bill with the Bush wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Congress voted to authorize President Bush to order the illegal attack, invasion and killing of many thousands of innocent Afghan men, women and children.
The Congress also voted to authorize President Bush to order the illegal attack, invasion and killing of well over a million innocent Iraqi people, to depose and execute their President, leaving hundreds of thousands of injured innocent Iraqi men, women and children.
Congress, in effect, authorized the consequent deaths of thousands of American troops and the permanent serious wounds of many thousands of American troops and the suffering of their families.
Did those patriotic Americans, who object to the use of the ‘self-executing rule’ to pass the Healthcare bill, agree with those illegal Bush wars, because Congress voted to approve the illegal Bush wars of 911?
Those Congressional votes about 911 acts affected American lives in very serious economic, social and political ways, such as affecting the costs of America’s healthcare, the loss of jobs, and education of American children.
Those Congressional votes misled some patriotic Americans to forget the meaning of liberty, as described in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
When the Declaration spoke of unalienable Rights it associated all men with those rights; it stated that the purpose of governments was to secure the unalienable Rights of all men. That whenever any form of government became destructive of those rights, it was the right of the people to alter or abolish such a government and institute a new government founded on such principles, and organized with such powers, that would affect the Safety and Happiness of the people.
The Declaration’s second paragraph informs us that our liberty to pursue safety and happiness is only possible if we the people agree to cooperate in instituting government policies that combine our labor talents and consent to participate in accomplishing our safety and happiness.
America’s experience shows all of us that private enterprise is not able to provide for the safety and happiness of all people because it does not and cannot, by itself, assume the responsibility to secure the unalienable rights of all people to safety and happiness. That is only possible by instituting a government to assume that task.
It is true in a government by the consent of the people, as it is true in the personal lives of we the people, that “hard heads make a soft behind” meaning we cause ourselves to kick against our best good when we fail in our efforts to use our heart and minds in achieving what is good for us. It is up to all of ‘we the people’ to make the healthcare bill become a blessing to all of us – each and every one of us. Anger and hatred do not heal.
Someone once said, We are at our best when we are willing to help others.
This is the week we’ve been waiting for — the week when members of the House of Representatives choose to stand with us or the insurance companies.
The insurance industry operatives and Republican talking heads you see on cable TV say we need to start over and spend another year — or another decade — before we pass reform. They twist the facts to say that the public opposes reform, but what the public really opposes are attempts to water down or kill reform to keep the insurance companies happy.
AFSCME members like you are fighting the good fight and have been a critical voice for the past year in the health insurance reform debate. Together, we’ve made literally tens of thousands of phone calls and sent even more emails to our senators and representatives. The insurance industry has deep pockets and is doing all it can to kill reform — but we won’t let them win. This is our moment.
The bill that the House will soon vote on would end the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to those who have pre-existing conditions — or deny coverage when you get sick. It would require insurance companies to pay for preventive care. It would also allow parents to keep their unemployed children on their policies until they turn 26. And it would end taxpayer funded subsidies to Big Insurance.
The historic nature of this moment cannot be overstated. The opportunity to end insurance company abuses is a moment for which we have worked long and hard. It is a vote that will affect our children, and their children. Please take a moment now to contact your member of Congress. Tell him/her the time has come to stand up to the insurance companies. The time has come to pass health care reform.
Editor’s Note: The following column by former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura was removed by Huffington Post after it was published March 9 and replaced with a note that states the site “prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — including those about 9/11.”
You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but at a recent conference in San Francisco, more than 1,000 architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9-11.
That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy — because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the twin towers and WTC Building 7.
Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.”
He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 47 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon, even though it was never hit by an aircraft. This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies, published by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows: Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9-11 were going 440 and 550 mph.
Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings?
I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics.
These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately 10 seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.
NIST started its investigation on Aug. 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9-11, with Gov. Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever.
And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the twin towers and the nearby Building 7:
“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2,500 degrees Centigrade [4,532 degrees Fahrenheit]. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.”
Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”
A former Navy Seal, professional wrestler and actor Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket in 1998 where he served until 2002. Today, Ventura is best known for hosting the popular television show Conspiracy Theory, which airs on cable television. He is also the author of five books.
Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and US civil liberties.
The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for “terrorists.” Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans.
The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the US government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed “terrorists” prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat.
As there was no evidence against the “detainees” (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the US government needed a way around US and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the US Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.
The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not US citizens and were demonized by the regime as “the 760 most dangerous men on earth,” there was little public outcry over the regime’s unconstitutional and inhumane actions.
As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon US citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, an American citizen of Pakistani origin, might have been the first.
Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the US military’s notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children were with her at the time she was abducted, one an eight-month old baby. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.
Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being tortured, disclosed her presence. An embarrassed US government responded to the disclosure by sending Siddiqui to the US for trial on the trumped-up charge that while a captive, she grabbed a US soldier’s rifle and fired two shots attempting to shoot him. The charge apparently originated as a US soldier’s excuse for shooting Dr. Siddiqui twice in the stomach resulting in her near death.
On Feb. 4, Dr. Siddiqui was convicted by a New York jury for attempted murder. The only evidence presented against her was the charge itself and an unsubstantiated claim that she had once taken a pistol-firing course at an American firing range. No evidence was presented of her fingerprints on the rifle that this frail and broken 100-pound woman had allegedly seized from an American soldier. No evidence was presented that a weapon was fired, no bullets, no shell casings, no bullet holes. Just an accusation.
Wikipedia has this to say about the trial: “The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the US interrogators, did not match hers.”
An ignorant and bigoted American jury convicted her for being a Muslim. This is the kind of “justice” that always results when the state hypes fear and demonizes a group.
The people who should have been on trial are the people who abducted her, disappeared her young children, shipped her across international borders, violated her civil liberties, tortured her apparently for the fun of it, raped her, and attempted to murder her with two gunshots to her stomach. Instead, the victim was put on trial and convicted.
This is the unmistakable hallmark of a police state. And this victim is an American citizen. Anyone can be next. Indeed, on February 3 Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee that it was now “defined policy” that the US government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government’s judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.
This shows how far the police state has advanced. A presidential appointee in the Obama administration tells an important committee of Congress that the executive branch has decided that it can murder American citizens abroad if it thinks they are a threat.
I can hear readers saying the government might as well kill Americans abroad as it kills them at home —Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers.
Yes, the US government has murdered its citizens, but Dennis Blair’s “defined policy” is a bold new development. The government, of course, denies that it intended to kill the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver’s wife and child, or the Black Panthers. The government says that Waco was a terrible tragedy, an unintended result brought on by the Branch Davidians themselves. The government says that Ruby Ridge was Randy Weaver’s fault for not appearing in court on a day that had been miscommunicated to him, The Black Panthers, the government says, were dangerous criminals who insisted on a shoot-out.
In no previous death of a US citizen by the hands of the US government has the government claimed the right to kill Americans without arrest, trial, and conviction of a capital crime.
In contrast, Dennis Blair has told the US Congress that the executive branch has assumed the right to murder Americans who it deems a “threat.”
What defines “threat”? Who will make the decision? What it means is that the government will murder whomever it chooses. There is no more complete or compelling evidence of a police state than the government announcing that it will murder its own citizens if it views them as a “threat.”
Ironic, isn’t it, that “the war on terror” to make us safe ends in a police state with the government declaring the right to murder American citizens who it regards as a threat.
Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an assistant secretary of the US Treasury. His latest book, “How The Economy Was Lost”, has just been published. Courtesy Arab News
Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came home with sweaty palms from his mid-February visit to Israel. Ever since, he has been worrying aloud that Israel might mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran.
This is especially worrying, because Mullen has had considerable experience in putting the brakes on such Israeli plans in the past. This time, he appears convinced that the Israeli leaders did not take his earlier warnings seriously — notwithstanding the unusually strong language he put into play.
Upon arrival in Jerusalem on Feb. 14, Mullen wasted no time in making clear why he had come. He insisted publicly that an attack on Iran would be “a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences.”
After his return, at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22, Mullen drove home the same point — with some of the same language. After reciting the usual boilerplate about Iran being “on the path to achieve nuclear weaponization” and about its “desire to dominate its neighbours,” he included this in his prepared remarks:
“I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive.”
In answer to a question about the “efficacy” of military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, Mullen said such strikes “would delay it for one to three years.” Underscoring the point, he added that this is what he meant “about a military strike not being decisive.”
Unlike younger generals, such as David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam War. It seems likely that this experience prompted his philosophical aside about the war in Afghanistan:
“I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is bloody and uneven. It’s messy and ugly and incredibly wasteful, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth the cost.”
Though the immediate context for that remark was Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and again that war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those with a modicum of familiarity with the military, strategic and economic equities at stake know he is right.
Recall that one of Mullen’s Vietnam veteran contemporaries, Adm. William “Fox” Fallon was cashiered as CENTCOM commander in March 2008 for saying things like war with Iran “isn’t going to happen on my watch.”
Fallon openly encouraged negotiations with Iran as the only sensible approach, and harshly criticized the “constant drum beat” for war.
Fallon’s attitude appears to be shared by the more politically cautious – and less rhetorically blunt – Mullen, as the same war-with-Iran drumbeat reaches a new crescendo today.
Fallon abhorred the thought of being on the receiving end of an order inspired by the likes of then-Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams to send American troops into what would surely be – in Mullen’s words – a “bloody, uneven, messy, ugly and incredibly wasteful” war.
How strong the pressure was within the Bush administration to attack Iran – or to give Israel “a green light” to attack Iran – can be read between the lines in a Feb. 14 exchange between ABC News’ “This Week” host Jonathan Karl and former Vice President Cheney.
Karl: “How close did the Bush administration come to taking military action against Iran?”
Cheney: “Some of that I can’t talk about, obviously, still. I’m sure it’s still classified. We clearly never made the decision – we never crossed over that line of saying, ‘Now we’re going to mount a military operation to deal with the problem.’ …”
Karl: “David Sanger of the New York Times says that the Israelis came to you – came to the administration in the final months and asked for certain things, bunker-buster bombs, air-to-air refueling capability, over-flight rights, and that basically the administration dithered, did not give the Israelis a response. Was that a mistake?”
Cheney: “I can’t get into it still. I’m sure a lot of those discussions are still very sensitive.”
Karl: “Let me ask you: Did you advocate a harder line, including in the military area, in those final months?”
Karl: “And with respect to Iran?”
Cheney: “Well, I made public statements to the effect that I felt very strongly that we had to have the military option, that it had to be on the table, that it had to be a meaningful option, and that we might well have to resort to military force in order to deal with the threat that Iran represented. … [But] we never got to the point where the President had to make a decision one way or the other.”
Clearly, those pressures have not disappeared during the first 13 months of the Obama administration. Today, it appears that Mullen has replaced Fallon as the principal military obstacle to exercising the war option against Iran.
From his recent demeanor, as well as his many statements since he became the country’s most senior officer, it is apparent that Mullen does not believe that a “preventive war” against Iran would be worth the horrendous cost.
Washington rhetoric, echoed by the many stenographers of the Fawning Corporate Media over the past eight years, has brought a veneer of respectability to the international crime of aggressive war, as long as done or sanctioned by the United States.
With nodding approval from the FCM, Bush and Cheney sold the notion that such attacks can be justified to “prevent” some future hypothetical threat to the United States or its allies, the supposed rationale for invading Iraq in 2003.
Clearly, the Obama administration has not fully backed away from such thinking.
While in Qatar on Feb. 14, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed concern over what she called “accumulating evidence” of an Iranian attempt to pursue a nuclear weapon, not because it “directly threaten[s] the United States, but [because] it directly threatens a lot of our friends” — read Israel.
Mullen, for his part, seems acutely aware that the Constitution he has sworn to defend makes no provision for the kind of war he might be sucked into to defend Israel. When he studied at the Naval Academy, his professors apparently were still teaching that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that treaties ratified by the Senate become the “supreme law of the land.”
It would be, pure and simple, a flagrant violation of a supreme law of the land, the Senate-ratified United Nations Charter, for the United States to join in an unprovoked assault on Iran without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, which surely would not go along.
Adm. Mullen also appears to be one of the few Americans aware that there is no mutual defense treaty between the United States and Israel and, thus, the U.S. has no legal obligation to jump to Israel’s defense if it ignites war with Iran.
Now you may scoff. “Everyone knows,” you will say, that political realities in America dictate that the U.S. military must defend Israel no matter who started a conflict.
Still, there was a time – after the 1967 Israeli-Arab war when Israel first occupied the Palestinian territories – that the U.S. did take soundings regarding the possibility of a mutual defense treaty, in the expectation that this might introduce more calm into the area by giving the Israelis a greater sense of security.
But the Israelis turned the overture down cold. Such treaties, you see, require internationally recognized boundaries and Israel did not want any part of parting with the territories it had just seized militarily.
Besides, mutual defense treaties usually impose on both parties an obligation to inform the other if one decides to attack a third country. Israel wanted no part of that either.
This virtually unknown background helps to explain why the lack of a treaty of mutual defense is more than a picayune academic point.
Why Is Mullen Worried?
Yet, if Adm. Mullen is an old hand at reining in the Israelis, why is he so visibly worried at present? He’s had experience in reading the riot act to the Israelis. So what could be so different now?
Last time, in mid-2008, Cheney and Abrams were arguing for an aggressive military posture toward Iran but lost the argument to Mullen and his senior commanders, who – in the final days of the Bush administration – won the backing of President Bush.
When former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seemed intent on starting hostilities with Iran before Bush and Cheney left office, Bush ordered Adm. Mullen to Israel to tell the Israelis, in no uncertain terms, don’t do it. Mullen gladly rose to the occasion; actually, he outdid himself.
With Bush’s full support, Mullen told the Israelis to disabuse themselves of the notion that U.S. military support would be knee-jerk automatic if Israel somehow provoked open hostilities with Iran.
We also learned from the Israeli press that Mullen went so far as to warn the Israelis not to even think about another incident at sea like the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, which left 34 American crew killed and more than 170 wounded.
Never before had a senior U.S. official braced Israel so blatantly about the Liberty incident, which was covered up unconscionably by Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, the Congress, and by the Navy itself. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Navy Vet Honored, Foiled Israeli Attack.”]
The lesson the Israelis took away from the Liberty incident was that they could get away with murder, literally, and walk free because of political realities in the United States. Never again, said Mullen. He could not have raised a more neuralgic issue.
So, again, what’s different about today? How to account for Mullen’s decision to keep expressing his worries about “unintended consequences”?
I believe the admiral fears that things are about to spin out of control. Whether there will be war does not depend on Mullen — or even Obama. It depends on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And Mullen does well to be worried.
Netanyahu’s Impression of Obama
It is altogether likely that Netanyahu has concluded that Barack Obama is — in the vernacular — a wuss. Why, for example, does the President keep sending an endless procession of the most senior U.S. officials to Tel Aviv to plead with their Israeli counterparts: Please, pretty please, don’t start a war with Iran.
Loose-cannon Vice President Joe Biden arrives on Monday, hopefully with clearer instructions than when he blithely told ABC on July 4, 2009, that Israel is a “sovereign nation” and thus “entitled” to launch a military strike against Iran, adding that Washington would make no effort to dissuade the Israeli government.
Will Biden manage to keep his foot out of his mouth this time, or will his nearly four decades of experience in the U.S. Senate – learning how to position himself politically in regards to Israel – again reassert itself?
It is a safe bet that Netanyahu is wryly amused at such obsequious buffoonery. But his impression of Obama’s backbone – or lack thereof – is key.
The Israeli Prime Minister must be drawing some lessons from Obama’s aversion to leveraging the $3 billion a year the U.S. gives to Israel. Why doesn’t he simply pick up the phone and warn me himself, Netanyahu might be asking himself.
Is Obama so deathly afraid of the powerful Likud Lobby that he cannot bring himself to call me? Is the President afraid his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, might listen in and leak it to neoconservative pundits like the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank?
Netanyahu has had ample time to size up the President. Their initial encounter in May 2009 reminded me very much of the disastrous meeting in Vienna between another young American president and Nikita Khrushchev in early June 1961.
The Soviets took the measure of President John Kennedy, and a result was the Cuban missile crisis which brought the world as close as it has ever come, before or since, to nuclear destruction.
The Israeli Prime Minister has found it possible to thumb his nose at Obama’s repeated pleas for a halt in illegal construction of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories — without consequence. Moreover, Netanyahu has watched Obama cave in time after time — on domestic, as well as international issues.
Netanyahu styles himself as sitting in the catbird’s seat of the relationship, largely because of the Likud Lobby’s unparalleled influence with U.S. lawmakers and opinion makers — not to mention the entrée the Israelis enjoy to the chief executive himself by having one of their staunchest allies, Rahm Emanuel, in position as White House chief of staff. In the intelligence business, we might call that an “agent of influence.”
Emanuel’s father, Benjamin Emanuel, was born in Jerusalem and served in the Irgun, the pre-independence Zionist guerrilla organization. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Rahm Emanuel, then in his early 30s, traveled to Israel as a civilian volunteer to work with the Israeli Defense Forces. He served in one of the IDF’s northern bases.
So, Netanyahu is supremely confident of the solidity of his position with the movers and shakers in Congress, Washington opinion makers, and even within the Obama administration, and he gives off signs of being singularly underwhelmed by the President.
These factors enhance the possibility Netanyahu will opt for the kind of provocation that would confront Obama with a Hobson’s choice of either joining an Israeli attack on Iran or facing dire political consequences at home.
And so Mullen continues to worry — not only about “unintended consequences,” but about what might be accurately described as intended consequences, as well. The most immediate of these could involve mouse-trapping Obama into committing U.S. forces to war provoked with Iran.
And for those fond of saying that “everything is on the table,” be advised that this would go in spades in this context.
Very little seems outlandish these days. Remember Seymour Hersh’s report about Cheney’s office conjuring up plots as to how best to trigger a war with Iran? Hersh said:
“The one that interested me [Hersh] the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy Seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.”
In other words, another Tonkin Gulf incident, like the one that President Johnson used to justify a massive escalation in Vietnam.
Only a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin in the Strait of Hormuz could be even more problematic, given the waterway’s vital role as a supply route for oil tankers necessary for maintaining the world’s economy.
The navigable part of the Strait of Hormuz is narrow, and things often go bump in the night without trying. For example:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) – On the evening of Jan. 8, 2007, a U.S. nuclear-powered submarine collided with a Japanese oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world’s oil supplies travel, officials said. The collision between the USS Newport News and the Japanese-flagged motor vessel Mogamigawa occurred at approximately 10:15 in the evening (local time) in the Strait of Hormuz while the submarine was transiting submerged.
AP, March 20, 2009: “The USS Hartford nuclear submarine and the amphibious USS New Orleans collided in the waters between Iran and the Arabian peninsula today. Fifteen sailors were slightly injured aboard the Hartford…the New Orleans suffered a ruptured fuel tank, spilling 25,000 gallons of diesel….The ships were on routine security patrols in a busy shipping route.”
Think back also to the bizarre accounts of the incident involving swarming Iranian boats and U.S. naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Jan. 6, 2008.
Preventing Preventive War
The Persian Gulf would be an ideal locale for Israel to mount a provocation eliciting Iranian retaliation that could, in turn, lead to a full-scale Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear-related sites.
Painfully aware of that possible scenario, Adm. Mullen noted at a July 2, 2008, press conference, that military-to-military dialogue could “add to a better understanding” between the U.S. and Iran.
If Mullen’s worries are to be taken as genuine (and I believe they are), it would behoove him to resurrect that idea and formally propose such dialogue to the Iranians.
He is the U.S. government’s senior military officer and should not let himself be stymied by neoconservative partisans more interested in regime change in Tehran than in working out a modus vivendi and reduction of tension.
The following two modest proposals could go a long way toward avoiding an armed confrontation with Iran — whether accidental, or provoked by those who may actually wish to precipitate hostilities and involve the U.S.
Establish a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran, in order to reduce the danger of accident, miscalculation or covert attack.
Launch immediate negotiations by top Iranian and American naval officers to conclude an incidents-at-sea protocol.
A communications link has historically proven its merit during times of high tension. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 underscored the need for instantaneous communications at senior levels, and a “hot line” between Washington and Moscow was established the following year.
That direct link played a crucial role, for example, in preventing the spread of war in the Middle East during the Six-Day War in early June 1967.
Another useful precedent is the “Incidents-at-Sea” agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, signed in Moscow in May 1972. That period was another time of considerable tension between the two countries, including several inadvertent naval encounters that could well have escalated. The agreement sharply reduced the likelihood of such incidents.
I believe it would be difficult for American and Iranian leaders alike to oppose measures that make such good sense. Press reports show that top U.S. commanders in the Persian Gulf have favored such steps. And, as indicated above, Adm. Mullen has already appealed for military-to-military dialogue.
In the present circumstances, it has become increasingly urgent to discuss seriously how the United States and Iran might avoid a conflict started by accident, miscalculation or provocation. Neither the U.S. nor Iran can afford to allow an avoidable incident at sea to spin out of control.
With a modicum of mutual trust, these common-sense actions might be able to win wide and prompt acceptance by leaders in both countries.
Ray McGovern is a retired CIA analyst and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Mossad Comes to America: Death Squads by Invitation
AMERICA IS BEING MADE TO WALK ON TIGHT ROPE
The principle propaganda mouthpiece of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO), the Daily Alert (DA), has come out in full support for Israel’s practice of extra-judicial, extra-territorial assassination.
In the face of world-wide governmental condemnation (except from the Zionist-occupied White House and US Congress), the PMAJO slavishly backs any brutal murder committed by the Israeli secret police anywhere in the world and at anytime. The recent assassination of Hamas leader, Mahmoud Mabhouh, in Dubai is a case in point. The PMAJO has defended all of Mossad’s criminal actions leading up to the murder, including extensive identity theft and the stealing or falsification of passports and official documents from several European countries, presumably allied to the Zionist state. Among the Mossad agents who entered Dubai to kill Mabhouh, twelve agents used stolen or forged British passports, three Australian, three French, one German and six Irish. These agents assumed the identity of European citizens in order to commit murder in a sovereign nation.
Once again the PMAJO demonstrate that its first loyalty is to the Israeli secret police, even when they violate the sovereignty of major US allies. No doubt the PMAJO would readily support the Israeli Mossad, even if it were shown to have used U.S. documents to assassinate Mabhouh. In fact, two of the 26 Israeli assassins, carrying fake Irish and fake British passports, are known to have entered the United States after the killing and may still be here.
The position adopted by the Daily Alert and the PMAJO in defense of Israel’s international terrorist act followed several lines of attack, which will be discussed below. These include: (1) blaming the victim, (2) claiming that extra-judicial, extra territorial murders are legal, (3) minimizing the murder of ‘one’ individual, (4) deflecting attention from the Zionists by blaming ‘other Arab’s, (5) favorably comparing Mossad assassinations to US killings in Afghanistan, (6) trivializing and relativizing world condemnation, (7) citing “self-defense”, (8) praising the high tech ‘operational details’ of the assassination and (9) discrediting the Dubai police investigators rather than the Israeli perpetrators.
Abridged articles, cited in the Daily Alert, have appeared in the op-ed pages of several US, UK, Canadian and Israeli newspapers, as well as in rightwing magazines like Forbes and Commentary. The mainline Zionist propaganda technique is to avoid any discussion of Israel’s egregious crimes against sovereignty, due process, international law and the personal security of individuals. In doing so, the Daily Alert adopts the propaganda techniques common to all totalitarian regimes practicing state terrorism.
(1) Blaming the Victim
On February 22, the Daily Alert (DA) headlined two articles, which were entitled: “Killed Hamas Official betrayed by Associates says Dubai Police Chief” and “Hamas: Assassinated Operative put Himself at Risk”. The DA forgot to mention that Israeli secret police had been tracking their prey for over a month (having failed to assassinate him on six previous attempts) and that the Dubai Police Chief was not blaming Hamas officials but was in the process of accumulating evidence, witness statements, videos and documents proving the Israeli identities of the assassins. Needless to say, if we were to accept the American Zionists’ argument that any leading opponent of Israel, who travels without an army of bodyguards, is “putting himself at risk”, then we must acknowledge that ours is a lawless world where Israeli hit squads are free to commit murder anywhere, any time.
(2) Extra-Judicial, Extra territorial Murder is “Legal” (At least if the killers are Mossad)
The February 22 and February 24 issues of the DA include two articles arguing that Israel’s practice of extra-judicial, extra-territorial murder is legal. One article is entitled, “The Legality of Killing of Hamas Mahmoud al Mabhoud” and the other, “The Proportionate Killing of Mahmoud al Mabhoud”. These avoid any reference to international law, which emphatically rejects cross-border, state-sponsored murders. Legality, for the PMAJO, is whatever the Israel’s secret police apparatus deems expedient in pursuit of its goal of eliminating leaders who oppose its colonial occupation and expropriation of Palestinian lands. If Israel’s extra-judicial, extra-territorial murder of an adversary in Dubai is legal, why not assassinate opponents in the US, Canada, England or any other country where they might travel, live, work or write? What if the critics and opponents of Israel decided that it was now “legal” to murder Israel’s supporters wherever they lived citing the Daily Alert’s definition of legality? We would then find ourselves in a lawless world of “legal” murder and totalitarian cross-border surveillance.
(3) Minimizing the Murder
The Feb 22, 24, and 25 issues of the Daily Alert deflect attention from the Mossad murder by making comparison to the hundreds of Afghan civilians killed by US drone attacks. The claim is that “targeting individuals” is less a crime than mass killings. The problem with this argument is that for decades Mossad has “targeted” scores of opponents overseas and killed thousands of Palestinians in the occupied territories (where they work with the domestic secret police, Shin Bet, and the military, IDF). Moreover, this argument linking Israel’s extra judicial assassinations with US colonial killing of Afghans is hardly a defense of either. By implicating the US in its defense of state terror, Israel is holding up the worst aspects of American imperialism as a standard for its own political behavior. One state’s crimes are no justification for another’s.
(4) Blaming the Arabs: Deflecting Attention from Israel
The DA Feb. 22 article entitled “The Assassination Heard Around the World” insinuates that the murder was a “result of a Hamas power struggle” or by one of “many Arab groups who loathes the Islamist Hamas”.
In other words, all the forged or stolen European passports of Israeli dual citizens, and the Dubai security videos of Mossad operatives in various costumes, not to mention the jubilant affirmation by top Israeli leaders of the killing, was in reality ‘Arab tricks’. This crude propaganda ploy by the most prominent Jewish American organization reveals their own descent into a fantasy land of self-delusion, possible only in the closed world of US Zionist politics.
(5) Technical Proficiency
The DA published several articles praising the technical details of the Mossad assassination in Dubai, an aspect of the operation, with which few Israel security experts would agree. The Feb. 24 DA article entitled, “Assassination Shows Skillful Planning” chastises Israel’s critics for not recognizing the high quality of the “operational aspects” of the killings and recommends its “lessons for all intelligence services around the world”. Like sociopaths and serial killers, US Zionists openly promote Israeli death squad techniques to all fellow state terrorists. In the DA, professional techniques of assassination are far more important than universal moral repugnance of political murders.
(6) Discrediting the Investigators While Defending the Perpetrators
The DA on Feb. 25 cited a long and tendentious attack on the Dubai police, published in Forbes Magazine, which ridiculed their meticulous investigations uncovering Mossad’s roles in the murder. In this article, the Dubai authorities were condemned for uncovering Israeli involvement while not investigating the source of the murder victims’ … Iraqi passport! Instead of encouraging the Dubai police pursuit of justice, the Daily Alert published a long diatribe implicating Dubai in the attacks of 9/11/2001, its continued trade with Iran, its ‘involvement’ in international terrorism etc. There was no mention of Dubai’s relatively friendly position to Israel and Israelis prior to Mossad’s blatant violation of its sovereignty.
The American Zionist propaganda campaign in defense of Israeli state terror and, specifically, Mossad’s murder of a Hamas leader in Dubai, relies on lies, evasions and specious legal arguments. This “defense” violates all precepts of a civilized society as well as the most recent American federal laws prohibiting all forms of support for international terrorism. The PMAJO can pursue its defense of Mossad’s acts of international terrorism with impunity in the US because of its power over the US Congress, the Obama White House and the American mass media. This ensures that only its version of events, its definition of legality and its lies will be heard by legislators, echoed by Zionist activists and embellished by its solemn defenders in academic and journalistic circles. To counter the American Zionist defense of Israel’s practice of extra-territorial, extra-judicial executions by the Mossad, we need American writers and academics to step forward. It is time to expose their flimsy arguments, bold-face lies and audacious immorality. It is time to speak out against their impunity, before another Israeli secret police murder takes place, possibly inside the USA itself and with the shameless complicity of Zionist accomplices.
The authorities in Dubai have found clear evidence that the Mossad assassination team received support from European Zionists. The hotels, air tickets and expenses were paid with credit cards issued in the US. Two of the killers may be in the US now. Will a time come when American Zionists, who are unconditional public defenders of Mossad killings, cross the line between propaganda for the deed to become accomplices of the deed? The robust American Zionist defense of Mossad’s overseas assassinations does not augur well for the security of Americans in the face of Israel’s willing U.S. accomplices.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles.
Where do you start? John McCain is facing a challenge in Arizona. He is going to drag out his military record and his experience as a personal recommendation. Few Americans really know that McCain is a mental case with a “war record” he has had to have “classified” to keep himself out of prison.
The truth, is this all? Does he have lifelong ties to organized crime, a history of voting against veterans and working against POW/MIA group? It is even worse than that. We have never had a person this crazy with this much baggage running for any office in our history. McCain, the personal shadow of Josef Lieberman, the Senator from Tel Aviv, along with dozens of others, could and should all be doing time, not “serving democracy.”
We have never had a political candidate in our history so deserving of the attention of criminal profilers as John McCain. Now that there is time for reflective and intelligent thought, those who supported him should take a look at his real history. The myth of John McCain, carefully groomed by the organization was challenged by POW advocate Ted Sampley. It makes a powerful read and earned Sampley the hatred of McCain and John Kerry until his death. I can think of no better epitaph for an American.
McCain, the lovable sociopath, is not the only one, not by a long shot. We have peppered the country with junior versions of McCain, all chasing the brass ring represented by selling America to the powerful and generally evil groups that own our government. It isn’t just AIPAC, front for poor Israel, a country that touts itself as the “second most powerful nuclear power on earth” or the endless lobbies. The disappointment so many feel about President Obama tells the story.
As a veteran, I had to work for Obama, or so I thought. McCain had done so much against our POWs and their families, was so crooked, did so much to betray America’s veterans that he had to go. This left me with having to push support to Barack Obama, another of those “out of nowhere” politicians, obviously alot smarter than McCain and with some sense to know what economic disaster looks like. I knew he couldn’t be running for office unless he had been “packaged” by some group with an agenda to keep things as they were.
Here is a question. If Congress wasn’t as corrupt as we know it to be, a pile of money hogs with their noses stuck in a trough, would the health care bill have passed by now? Any idiot knows we need one, OK, any half idiot. Every American that opposed health care, or at least a public option, must be a total dupe. When we started, 40% of Americans had no coverage, it is now 55%. However, the bill we are voting on is a boondoggle for the insurance companies and, even then, the GOP isn’t happy with that.
How do I hate the democrats for their corruption and gutlessness when the entire Republican party is even worse, pawns of gangsters, totally bereft of any humanity at all?
All Americans asked of Obama was to clean up the remains of two stolen elections and investigate the criminal conspiracy at the heart of the Bush administration. At least, we need a new 9/11 Commission and a Special Prosecutor to go after those who have been accused of perjury and submitting false information to the first one. This would jail half the Bush Administration and, perhaps, open the door to a look at how things really work.
Tens of millions of Americans and most people outside the United States believe 9/11 was a conspiracy involving the Bush administration and groups from Israel. Whether this is true or not, since 9/11 we have found massive evidence that it may be true and, since the Detroit “Crotch Bombing” of 2009, we have a publicly know evidentiary trail showing how it could have been done using the Mossad and Israeli owned companies.
Even those Americans who still buy the MSM/Corporate press version of the conspiracy, there is enough proof that the Iraq invasion was part of a criminal conspiracy that should jail, not only a former President and Vice President but dozens of others also. That one is a slam dunk.
Obama has failed totally in his responsibility as president there.
Remember the Acorn scandal? Filled the newspapers with stories of buying votes and people dressing up as pimps. Now we find our “pimp” was a CIA employee, the newspaper stories were totally false and Acorn was victimized by a plot between the GOP, CIA and Israel as part of a ploy to rig a 3rd consecutive election. These are the facts as they stand, facts that will never be reported but facts just the same.
They tell you what is wrong. Nobody will ask newspapers why they take orders from lobbyists or why paid lobbyists like Tom Ridge and so many others are paraded in front of the public, them and their scripts, bringing us endless falsified news.
I was never a big one for the “grand conspiracy.” I had worked in politics, knew I was around crooks. Every American accepts this silently. It is why America is a failed state, heading down the toilet, dead in the water and, as any real economist knows, hopeless. I spent a alot of time with former Washington attorney and Senate Finance Chief Counsel, Jeff Gates over the last couple of weeks. We were on a lecture tour of Pakistan together and ended up dozens of discussions, some including alot of table pounding. We are both good at that part.
Jeff wrote tax code, the detail stuff, when working in the Senate as a lawyer. I come out of banking and finance also, so we had alot to go over. It took a couple of days, but eventually it began to sink in. What he knew and what I knew went one direction, our government had been under the control of organized crime for many years, not just since Reagan, as I had suspected. It went back long before that. Kennedy stood up against it, so did his brother Bobby.
The facts were there, not “newspaper” facts or Fox News “fair and balanced” facts. You could tie the ownership and control of newspapers, corporations and political parties to a few families. The “conspiracy theories” about the Trilateral Commission, CFR or Bilderbergers and Illuminati was a joke. It was the “mob” clear and simple. Prohibition, millions in profits buying government, not the Italian “Mafia” but a Jewish one, steeped in politics, both Republican and Democrat heading one way, the destruction of America.
Jeff’s conclusion was that the nation of Israel was established as a base for criminal operations as the legitimacy of a “nation state” was needed to gain control of America from within and without. The facts were there. His book, Guilt by Association and his website, www.criminalstate.com put it in terms that are unavoidable. I talked at length about history, where my background comes in. It all went together too well. We are continually bombarded by conspiracies to keep us off track. Everything is manipulated.
It was depressing. I keep looking within the political system and wonder why it does nothing but the same things, with Democrats moderating some aspects of financial abuse and theft but the direction keeps coming back. Our political system itself failed because we allowed money to buy power, which it did. It has never let go, it only made more money and bought more power.
The game wasn’t to steal money itself but to pile up debt. This is where the boring economic stuff comes in, why debt, and we are drowning in it, is vital to control of the US. Those Americans who talk about the Federal Reserve system and how it has turned over control to foreign banks, total control of America, are starting to get the picture. You just aren’t getting the entire picture unless you understand who the Rothchilds are and how they invented what we know of as banking.
It is possible that none of the major wars of the past 200 years would have started without the Rothchilds and their friends managing them. We are fighting two of those wars now, wars we have no idea how we got into, wars begun on 9/11, a vast plot of amazing complexity supposedly begun in a series of caves somewhere. Anyone who still believes this, I do wish you my best. You are trusting souls.
There are themes we can always come back to. We can take the Smedley Butler theme, named after the famous Marine General:
“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
Butler saw America as an imperialist power, not unlike Nazi Germany or Japan, working, not for the good of Americans but for a criminal conspiracy of feudal lords who used war and America’s military might for profit. It doesn’t take a genius to trace the oil, gas and opium of our current wars to back up the same assumptions but things have become more complex than that.
Do you accept Jeff Gate’s model that Butler, a military officer, was missing much of the background and that something more sinister was behind it all. If you run the clock back to the 1930s, history was seen differently then.
When we think Jews, we are immediately reminded of the holocaust and Hitler, usually by Jews who have made a life out of bringing this up as an excuse for Israel. In the 25 years starting with 1972, the United States had to veto 32 United Nations resolutions against Israel calling for sanctions, much like those against Iran today. Few Americans know this and even fewer have any idea why the rest of the world would be “picking on Israel” like that. Any other ally damned by the entire would that may times would have gotten tons of press and some serious questions. We get nothing but stories of evil Arabs and how Israel is threatened. Now we wake up to find them running much of the Middle East, a huge military power and in control of much of American politics.
Nobody is surprised but everyday Americans, or they would be if they knew. With Israel controlling our news and free to buy and sell Congress, we will never know, or so Jeff Gates says. Is he wrong? Can anyone prove it? I wish them luck.
The “yellow press” of today, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times or Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, the gang that pushes the “party line” have their roots decades ago. We pretend that control of the press controls our elections. With a two party system, control of both parties takes little effort. Why would this kind of power take chances? Control both parties, at least in the key areas involving support of Israel, support of debt and bleeding America dry.
If anyone tries to stand up against you, they can be murdered. Why was Reagan shot? Did he catch on? Was Kennedy shot because he tried to stop Israel from getting nuclear weapons? What kind of man was Senator Paul Wellstone? He and his family died in a mysterious plane wreck, like the wreck that killed Governor Mel Carnahan when he ran against John Ashcroft, “trained Israeli seal” and Christian Zionist extremist.
Ashcroft oversaw the dismemberment of the American Constitution, though Carnahan even after his death (murder?) still defeated him in the election. In Ohio, GOP “electronic voting specialist,” Mike Connell had a similar accident. One thing certain about America, stand up long enough, speak out enough or threaten the rackets and a house will fall on you.
For every killing we ask about, there are a dozen, maybe a hundred we forget quickly or never hear about at all. Anyone remember Jim Trafficant, the “crooked Congressman” recently released from prison? Even as a “convict,” most Americans, if they knew why he really went to prison would give him a Medal of Freedom. It wasn’t graft that sent him to jail, it was that he refused to be involved anymore and started to talk.
He is lucky a house didn’t fall on him.
Is Israel actually running America or is it a group of oil companies, defense contractors and financial crooks, backed by a media run by Israel? These are the choices. The old choice, “America is run by her people, as with any decent democracy” is believed by no one and easily debunked by a short look at our wars, 9/11, political assassinations, our economic condition and a look at the lies our newspapers carry.
Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, grunt and 100% disabled vet. He has been a UN Diplomat, defense contractor and is a widely published expert on military and defense issues. He is active in the financial industry and is a specialist on global trade. Gordon Duff acts as political and economic advisor to a number of governments in Africa and the Middle East.
Gordon Duff is a regular writer for veteranstoday.com and opinion-maker.org