Characteristics of Fascism

 

NSA

Characteristics of Fascism:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Controlled Mass Media Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Advertisements

Quotes

bushbama

The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” ― Benjamin Disraeli

(Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS, was a British Prime Minister, parliamentarian, Conservative statesman and literary figure. He served in government for forty years, twice as Prime Minister of Great Britain. Born: December 21, 1804, London, United Kingdom Died: April 19, 1881)

——————————-

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) 28th US President in his book entitled The New Freedom (1913)

——————————-

The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.
― Zbigniew Brzezinski (1970), Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era

October, 2011:

Brzezinski wants anyone making a lot of money to be pointed out, but a short time later he says he does not want Wall Street “demonized.” Then, he returns to his demonizing of people who legally earn a lot of money and spend it in ways that apparently he would not. Pay close attention to his statements about “control.”

“We have to have disclosure.”

“We have to have transparency.”

We have to have control.

“More fair distribution of Social Responsibility through taxation and elimination of loopholes.”

“And pressure even on the rich to avoid flaunting their wealth.”

—–

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski is a Polish American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.

——————————-

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government. ― Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference in Evians, France, 1991

—–

Henry Alfred Kissinger (/ˈkɪsɪnər/;[1] born Heinz Alfred Kissinger [haɪnts alfʁɛt kɪsɪŋɐ]; May 27, 1923) is a German-born American statesman and political scientist. A recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, he served as National Security Advisor and later concurrently as Secretary of State in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. After his term, his opinion was still sought by some subsequent US presidents and other world leaders.

A proponent of Realpolitik, Kissinger played a prominent role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977. During this period, he pioneered the policy of détente with the Soviet Union, orchestrated the opening of relations with the People’s Republic of China, and negotiated the Paris Peace Accords, ending American involvement in the Vietnam War.

Kissinger is still considered an influential public figure. He is the founder and chairman of Kissinger Associates, an international consulting firm.

——————————-

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell

——————————-

Quotes from Democrats about WMD

  1. “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 Quoted on CNN
  • “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Quoted on CNN
  • Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio — from USIA
  • “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998
    Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio — From USIA
  • “We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others
  • “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi — House of Representatives website
  • “Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 Answer to a question at the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs
  • “There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.
  • ” We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the… defanging Saddam..” — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002 Online with Jim Lehrer — Public Broadcasting Service
  • “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
  • “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
  • “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 U.S. Senate — Ted Kennedy
  • “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 Congressional Record — Robert Byrd
  • “When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.” —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002 Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry
  • “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. Jay Rockefeller
  • “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 Congressional Record — Rep. Henry Waxman
  • “In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.”It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. Hillary Clinton
  • “The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam’s possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.”Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.”
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. Ted Kennedy
  • “There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons… — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. Bob Graham
  • But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.”To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ”a defection agency,’ but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction — Sen. Joseph Biden Congressional Record — Sen. Joseph Biden
  • “With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry
  • “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002 Congressional Record — Sen. John Edwards

——————————-

Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. ― President Obama; January 21, 2009

Published: August 21, 2013; WASHINGTON — A federal judge sharply rebuked the National Security Agency in 2011 for repeatedly misleading the court that oversees its surveillance on domestic soil, including a program that is collecting tens of thousands of domestic e-mails and other Internet communications of Americans each year, according to a secret ruling made public on Wednesday (August 21, 2013).

The 85-page ruling by Judge John D. Bates, then serving as chief judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, involved an N.S.A. program that systematically searches the contents of Americans’ international Internet communications, without a warrant, in a hunt for discussions about foreigners who have been targeted for surveillance.

The Justice Department had told Judge Bates that N.S.A. officials had discovered that the program had also been gathering domestic messages for three years. Judge Bates found that the agency had violated the Constitution and declared the problems part of a pattern of misrepresentation by agency officials in submissions to the secret court.

This is just plain wrong. Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is one thing – and it’s the right thing – but doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for. ― Senator Obama; December 15, 2005, Senate floor statement on the PATRIOT Act

Soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn’t just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn’t need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.  ― Senator Obama; February 16, 2006, Senate floor statement on the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization

Over the last six months, Americans have learned that the National Security Agency has been spying on Americans without judicial approval. . . .

We don’t expect the president to give the American people every detail about a classified surveillance program. But we do expect him to place such a program within the rule of law, and to allow members of the other two coequal branches of government — Congress and the Judiciary — to have the ability to monitor and oversee such a program. Our Constitution and our right to privacy as Americans require as much. . . .

Every democracy is tested when it is faced with a serious threat. As a nation, we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us, and what distinguishes us, are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. These aren’t arbitrary ideas. These are the concrete safeguards that make sure that surveillance hasn’t gone too far. That someone is watching the watchers. . . .

We need to find a way forward to make sure that we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy, and liberty, of innocent Americans. We have to find a way to give the president the power he needs to protect us, while making sure he doesn’t abuse that power.  ― Senator Obama; May 25, 2006, Senate floor statement on the nomination of General Michael Hayden to the directorship of the CIA

When I am president, there will be no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. ― Senator Obama; December 24, 2007, “Right vs. Security: Candidates take stance” Des Moines Register

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. ― Senator Obama; June 20, 2008, Campaign Statement on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

“I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult, and budgets in this town are always difficult.”  ― President Obama, news conference, Jan. 14, 2013

 “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. … I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

“It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is  ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers.” — Sen. Barack Obama, floor speech in the Senate, March 16, 2006

This year (2013), the federal government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation and veterans benefits combined. The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” — Sen. Barack Obama, Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007

As a presidential candidate in 2007, now Vice President Joe Biden threatened to impeach President Bush if he unilaterally attacked Iran: “And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and former chair of the Judiciary Committee, I will move to impeach him.” — presidential candidate in 2007, now Vice President Joe Biden

——————————-

We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community
will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or
future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore
seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world
order – where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet
collective resistance.  President George H.W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1991

—-

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (also called the Medicare Modernization Act or MMA) is a federal law of the United States, enacted in 2003. It produced the largest overhaul of Medicare in the public health program’s 38-year history.

Its most touted change is the introduction of an entitlement benefit for prescription drugs, through tax breaks and subsidies.

In the years since Medicare’s creation in 1965, the role of prescription drugs in U.S. patient care has significantly increased. As new and expensive drugs have come into use, patients, particularly senior citizens for whom Medicare was designed, have found prescriptions harder to afford. The MMA is meant to address this problem.

The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.

  • Introduced in the House as Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 by Representative Dennis J. Hastert on June 25, 2003
  • Passed the House on June 27, 2003 (216 – 215, 1 Present)
  • Passed the Senate on July 7, 2003 (Unanimous Consent)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee on November 21, 2003; agreed to by the House on November 22, 2003 (220 – 215) and by the Senate on November 25, 2003 (54 – 44)
  • Signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003

——————————-

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.  Adolf Hitler

——————————-

After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” ― French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

——————————-

We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world. ― Siddhārtha Gautama

——————————-

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ― Mark Twain

——————————-

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

——————————-

We have so much room for improvement, every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory … of how we are taking responsibility. — Nancy Pelosi, 2009

Pelosi’s Tortured Denials:The facts behind the speaker’s changing story about her knowledge of CIA waterboarding.

——————————-

Damascus, Syria (CNN)[Breaking news update, posted on August 26, 2013: 3:06 p.m. ET]

(CNN) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that evidence “strongly indicates” that chemical weapons were used in Syria, adding that “we know the Syrian regime maintains custody” of such weapons and has the rockets to use them.

He said President Obama “will be making an informed decision about how to respond” and “believes there must be accountability” for those who use them.

——————————-

March 12, 2013, in a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Wyden had this exchange with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was under oath:

Wyden: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

Clapper: No sir.

Wyden: It does not?

Clapper: Not wittingly.

 

Subsequent revelations (Fri August 9, 2013): Documents shed light on U.S. surveillance programs

——————————-

The purpose of these programs, and the reason we use secrecy, is not to hide from the American people — not to hide it from you — but to hide it from those who walk among you who are trying to kill you.  ― Army Gen. Keith Alexander told a moderator from NBC News at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. July, 2013

——————————-

Bombing of Vietnam’s dikes

President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger discussed bombing the dike network in a 1972 conversation on Operation Linebacker II, later published by Daniel Ellsberg:

Nixon: We’ve got to quit thinking in terms of a three-day strike [in the Hanoi-Haiphong area]. We’ve got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack – which will continue until they – Now by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond. I’m thinking of the dikes, I’m thinking of the railroad, I’m thinking, of course, the docks.
Kissinger: I agree with you.
President Nixon: We’ve got to use massive force.
Two hours later at noon, H. R. Haldeman and Ron Ziegler joined Kissinger and Nixon:
President: How many did we kill in Laos?
Ziegler: Maybe ten thousand – fifteen?
Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen.
President: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind, power plants, whatever’s left – POL [petroleum], the docks. And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
President: No, no, no, I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
President: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?…I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.

On Thursday, February 17, 1972, President and Mrs. Nixon walked out to the south lawn of the White House, where a helicopter waited for them. A small crowd, among them Vice President Spiro Agnew and his wife, Republican and Democratic congressmen, and the two Nixon daughters, Tricia and Julie, saw them off as they started the first leg of their long trip to China. The brief ceremony was carried live on American radio and television. Nixon spoke briefly. He was making, he said, “a journey for peace,” but, he added, he was under no illusions that “twenty years of hostility between the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America are going to be swept away by one week of talks that we will have there.” Nevertheless, he was going in an optimistic spirit: “If there is a postscript that I hope might be written with regard to this trip, it would be the words on the plaque which was left on the moon by our first astronauts when they landed there: ‘We came in peace for all mankind.'” It was classic Nixon, that mixture of pragmatism and grandiloquence.

“We’re in Vietnam, 10% to help the South Vietnamese, 20% to hold back the Chinese, and 70% to save American face.” — U.S. Secretary of Defense McNamara (serving under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson from 1961 to 1968)

After his election in 1960, President-elect John F. Kennedy first offered the post of Secretary of Defense to former secretary Robert A. Lovett; Lovett declined but recommended McNamara. Kennedy then sent Sargent Shriver to approach him regarding either the Treasury or the Defense cabinet post less than five weeks after McNamara had become president at Ford. McNamara immediately rejected the Treasury position but eventually accepted Kennedy’s invitation to serve as Secretary of Defense.

There was one notable incident where Defense Secretary McNamara heartily agreed with Ellsberg’s judgment that the war was going nowhere while they were traveling together on a plane and then stepped onto the tarmac a short time later and brazenly told the assembled reporters that the war was going great. It is only people who are confident that the people around them will collude in their lies, at least for the sake of preserving their careers, that can do such things.

——————————-

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” ―  Word of God; Ephesians 6:12

World Economic Forum in Cape Town, South Africa

Fear not! Misery loves company! Africa, one country at a time, is being assimilated within the glorious globalized comprehensive framework of

The

New

World

Order.

Resistance Is Futile!

It was recently announced at the World Economic Forum in Cape Town,
South Africa that MasterCard and the Nigerian National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) under the government of Nigeria would form a partnership to distribute a new identity card to every Nigerian citizen. The purpose of the card is to have all Nigerian citizens participate in the financial services sector under the control of MasterCard, a multinational financial services corporation headquartered in New York. MasterCard’s press release ‘MasterCard to Power Nigerian Identity Card Program’ stated:

As part of the program, in its first phase, Nigerians 16 years and older, and all residents in the country for more than two years, will get the new multipurpose identity card which has 13 applications including MasterCard’s prepaid payment technology that will provide cardholders with the safety, convenience and reliability of electronic payments. This will have a significant and positive impact on the lives of these Nigerians who have not previously had access to financial services.

The program is also designed to move Nigeria into a cashless society,
one that is dependent on financial institutions, Wall Street and the Nigerian government. It will be managed by the financial elites of Wall Street, technocrats and of course Washington. All forms of financial transactions would be exchanged through plastic credit and debit cards that would have implanted RFID chips. Michael Miebach, President of the Middle East and Africa division at MasterCard supports the Nigerian government’s decision for a new cashless society, “Today’s announcement is the first phase of an unprecedented project in terms of scale and scope for Nigeria.”

Executive Order 13603 — National Defense Resources Preparedness

President Obama signed EO 13603 on March 16, 2012.

The purpose is to delegate authority and address national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950. It provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote national defense.

It is an update and it is not much different from prior EO’s on the National Defense Resources Preparedness. However, one difference which is concerning to some is that the definition “national emergency” is now broader and it is quite vague. There were other subtle changes that might be of interest.

The EO includes all of Obama’s out-of-control agencies and they would have unlimited power if the president declared a “national emergency.

Executive Order 13603 — National Defense Resources Preparedness allows the government to completely control our lives through the “industrial and technological base,” should the president declare a national emergency.

EO 13603 gives Obama the power over all commodities and products capable of being ingested by human beings and animals; all forms of energy; all forms of civil transportation; all usable water from all sources; health resources; forces labor such as military conscription; and federal officials can issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources.”

EO 13603 is the plan to control our economy and our lives in the event of a crisis
endangering our national security. There are no checks and balances written into the EO.

Will a cyber threat be used as an excuse to use this authority?

Will an economic crisis cause the president to take over retirement
funds using this EO?

The Supreme Court tried to establish some limitations. It asserted the principle that an executive order (1) “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself” and (2) “an executive order must not be “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”

But many executive orders are in a twilight zone of dubious
constitutional legitimacy if not open defiance of the Constitution, especially when they amount to lawmaking without congressional approval. Very few of the thousands of executive orders have ever been challenged legally.

Members of Congress don’t always seem to know much about them. At one point, for example, they were shocked to discover that there were executive orders providing the president with enormous stand by powers that could be implemented on a moment’s notice.

—————————————————

Peter Schiff saw it coming

“All we can do now is prepare for the crash,” Schiff said. “If we brace ourselves properly and control the impact, we will survive it.”

We must understand that none of the fundamental problems leading up to the 2007/2008 financial crisis have been resolved. If anything, it’s gotten worse. Our politicians will not change, and therefore, will change nothing in Washington. Wall Street is as corrupt as ever. Our central bank continues to devalue our currency. There is no end in sight for these people. They will continue on this unsustainable path until we as a country finally hit the proverbial brick wall. As Peter Schiff notes, the destruction to life as we know it in America and the world is imminent. It’s going to be severe. So much so that the government has been simulating the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence. (The same thing happened last year when the Social Security Administration posted a notice that it was buying 174,000 hollow point bullets.) A collapse happened in 2008, but THE collapse is still ahead. Watch: Peter Schiff Saw It Coming:

military oath, nuremberg, individual responsibility

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

The principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: ‘Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.’

The chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson,
declared in his opening statement, “that four great nations, flushed with victory and stung
with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the
judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to
Reason.”
Emphasizing that the Nazi leaders embodied “sinister influences that will lurk in
the world long after their bodies have returned to dust,” Justice Jackson went on: “The
[Nuremberg] charter recognizes that one who has committed a criminal act may not take
refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were acts of state.”
The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 codified many of the laws of war and established individual responsibility for grave breaches of them. In 1950, the International Law Commission (ILC), a body of legal experts acting at the direction of the UN, distilled the “Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal.” The first of these was that “[a]ny person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”


The military oath taken at the time of induction reads:

“I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, “The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, ‘Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.’ This principle was considered so important that we–we, the government of the United States–proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials.” (Bill Moyers, “The Secret Government”, Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, “The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis.”)

Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only “following orders” as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. “In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy” of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)

Documents shed light on U.S. surveillance programs; a reader’s comment

Article: Documents shed light on U.S. surveillance programs

By Evan Perez, CNN Justice Reporter
updated 8:49 PM EDT, Fri August 9, 2013
———————————————————

The following is an excellent comment, from rescuetruthin response to the linked article, above:

Let’s talk numbers and facts… The 1.6 percent number is MEANINGLESS if you have any knowledge of the IT world. First, we can probably assume that the government is not tracking your Netflix or Amazon Instant Video feeds. These feeds use HD video, which takes up MORE bandwidth than any typical internet request. The government *probably* isn’t interested in your Rhapsody or Pandora music feeds either. The government probably isn’t concerned about the trillions and trillions of simple requests made to check for Windows updates, iPhone updates, simple pings, etc. On the other hand, the government *IS* interested in your emails, phone calls, messages, and other records. Our most personal documents are usually TEXT documents, which are VERY SMALL in size.

In the grand scheme of things, 1.6 percent of internet traffic is an insanely scary amount of traffic, much worse than most of us ever anticipated. This is just spin. It’s meant to make it seem like privacy advocates are making a mountain out of a molehill. So with that in mind, let’s talk numbers…

144 billion emails per day in 2012 – Let’s assume each an email is on average 5 KB. This gives us 670552 GB per day in email. Some critical internet infrastructure gets over 2 TB (2048 GB) of traffic per SECOND. Extrapolate that out and you get 176947200 GB per day. That ends up being 0.3 percent of traffic from this SINGLE piece of infrastructure.

As you can see, it is *well* within the realm of possibility that the government could be tracking *EVERY* email sent. Add text messages, which are even smaller, and that 1.6% gets scarier and scarier. Hell, add your health and banking records, and we still don’t come close to that 1.6 percent number. Do not be fooled by this number. It is misleading just like everything else coming out of their mouths re:NSA.

The government was hiding this program from us for a reason, and it wasn’t national security. The government was hiding this program because they are illegally violating our constitutionally-guaranteed rights as U.S. citizens. It must stop.