Posted by sakerfa on October 28, 2009

(JeromeCorsi) – No ‘conspiracy theory,’ scheme hatched by CFR was sold to Bush, now Obama

The integration of the United States with Canada and Mexico, long deemed by many as little more than a fanciful “conspiracy theory,” was actually an idea promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations and sold to President Bush as a means of increasing commerce and business interests throughout North America, according to a top Canadian businessman.

Thomas d’Aquino, CEO and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives – the Canadian counterpart to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – confirmed in an interview recently published in Canada the accuracy of what WND first reported over three years ago: namely, that the Council on Foreign Relations was the prime mover in establishing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.

Published by the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Oct. 4, the d’Aquino interview verifies that the creation of the SPP was not a “conspiracy theory” but a well-thought-out North American integration plan launched by his organization, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, along with the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States.

According to d’Aquino, President Obama wants to continue North American integration under the renamed North American Leaders Summit, provided the North American Competitiveness Council can be recast to include more environmentalists and union leaders.

In the interview, d’Aquino traced the origin of SPP to his concerns, following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, that “there was a pressing need to keep the border open for commerce while simultaneously addressing the security needs of the United States and North America as a whole.”

Get “America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty” at the WND Superstore now.

With this goal in mind, d’Aquino explained that the CCCE by 2003 had “launched an agenda that we called the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative, or NASPI.”

As WND reported in July 2007, the term “Security and Prosperity” was first used by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives in a January 23, 2003, report titled “Security and Prosperity: Toward a New Canada-United States Partnership in North America.”

Then, in 2003, d’Aquino brought the idea to Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

“I helped convince Richard Haass at the Council on Foreign Relations that we should put together a trilateral task force to look at the future of North America,” d’Aquino said. “We recruited John Manley on Canada’s side, along with William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, and Pedro Aspe, the former Mexican economy minister, who had been so influential in promoting NAFTA.”

The result was a CFR Task Force on the Future of North America created on Oct. 15, 2004, and chaired by Manley, Weld and Aspe, precisely as d’Aquino had recommended to Haass.

The CFR Task Force on the Future of North America issued an executive summary, titled “Creating a North American Community,” that was issued March 14, 2005, just days before the March 23, 2005, trilateral summit at Waco, Texas, in which President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox declared the Security and Prosperity Partnership on their own authority, without any approval from the U.S. Congress.

The final task force report, titled “Building a North American Community,” was issued in March 2005, immediately following the Waco summit. (Read highlights of the controversial 59-page CFR report – including calls for increased financial aid to Mexico, the creation of a security border perimeter around all of North America, a reduction in border security between the U.S. and Mexico, and the creation of a new North American tribunal to settle disputes.)

D’Aquino agrees that the Council on Foreign Relations task force was instrumental to the trilateral summit in Waco during which the SPP’s existence was declared, saying in the interview: “The result of all these efforts [by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America] was that in 2005, Prime Minister Martin, President Bush and President Fox decided to sign what they called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America – the SPP.”

WND has consistently reported that the two reports issued by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America constituted the “blueprint” for the SPP unveiled at the Waco summit meeting.

The final CFR report included on page xvii a concise statement of purpose: “The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.”

D’Aquino also confirmed, as WND had previously reported, that the North American Competitiveness Council was hand-picked by the Chambers of Commerce in the three countries, without any legislative approval from any of the three nations.

“At their next summit meeting, in 2006, the three leaders invited leading members of the CEO communities in the three countries to provide private-sector input on issues related to competitiveness,” he continued. “From that idea, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was born, to be composed of 10 frontline CEOs from each of Canada, the United States and Mexico.” That plan was implemented.

“We produced 10 of our most senior CEOs while the Americans established an executive committee of 15 representing a broad range of large companies with rotating memberships. The Mexicans produced some heavy-duty people – many names you know well.”

As WND reported at the time, the North American Competitiveness Council dominated the third annual SPP summit meeting held in Montebello, Quebec, in Aug. 2007, a fact confirmed by the interview with d’Aquino.

“The first meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place in Montebello, Quebec, in 2007,” d’Aquino acknowledged. “Our Mexican and American counterparts graciously asked us to write the first NACC report. It was very well received, albeit heavily criticized by unions on the left and others as elitist: ‘Why did these people have access to the national leaders while everyone else was left out?’”

The NACC continued to advise SPP leaders behind closed doors at the fourth annual SPP summit meeting held in New Orleans, in April 2008, as WND reported and as d’Aquino now confirms: “The second meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place at their summit in New Orleans in 2008 – we were in the room with the leaders for a full hour and a half.”

Whereas Bush was sold on the SPP initiative as a means of enhancing business and commerce in North America, d’Aquino explained, Obama would continue with the SPP only if more environmentalists and union leaders were included in the private advisory group that had consisted entirely of business leaders under the aegis of the NACC.

“When President Obama came to power, he faced a lot of pressure to shelve the SPP and not follow through with the NACC because his advisers were looking for an institution that would also involve environmentalists, union leaders, et al.”

D’Aquino argued that the NACC should continue, and, as WND has reported, the Obama administration is continuing the previous administration’s pursuit of North American integration.

“But at the North American Leaders Summit in Guadalajara this summer, President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper both told President Obama that the NACC was very useful,” d’Aquino said. “In fact, the Canadian NACC group met with our prime minister and his key ministers for an hour and a half on the eve of his departure for the Guadalajara summit. He said that, regardless of whether the NACC continues formally on a trilateral basis, he welcomes our advice on trilateral issues.”

WND has regularly reported that the unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union, similar to the European Union, by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, composed of 30 North American business executives hand-picked, 10 each by the Chambers of Commerce of the three countries.

The Obama administration is continuing the SPP initiative under the “rebranded” and “refocused” banner of the less controversially renamed North American Leaders Summit that first met with Obama in Guadalajara, Mexico, last August.

Source: World Net Daily

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related Posts:

• A cold start to fall: over 4500 new snowfall, low temp, and lowest max temp records set in the USA this last week
• We Have The Moral High Ground
• Obama and Workers’ Rights in America
• Fractures in the Truth Movement, Part II

May 14, 2009 By: Freedom Fighter

Related Posts:

• Federal Govt Seeks To Lift Ban On HIV Infected Immigrants

Arizona State University has created a new trilateral research center to advance the continuing globalist agenda to integrate the United States, Mexico and Canada into a North American configuration.

The North American Center for Transborder Studies, or NACTS, makes clear that while North American integration advocates may have backed off promoting the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America as their vehicle to create a North American Union, the globalist effort to integrate North America economically and politically continues under different names.

NACTS Director Rick Van Schoik held a press conference Feb. 10 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to appeal directly to President Obama to utilize his first foreign presidential trip, to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, “to strengthen U.S. partnerships with its neighbors on challenges ranging from border security and environmental protection.”

Prominent among members of the NACTS Board of Advisors is Robert A. Pastor, who for more than a decade has called for the creation of a North American Community, which would include a central bank to manage a new currency, the amero, to replace the dollar.

In the July/August 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, Pastor wrote an article entitled “The Future of North America,” in which he declared that the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, is “dead” in wake of exposure from sources such as WND and CNN’s Lou Dobbs.

Get “The Late Great USA” on DVD! Jerome Corsi explains the premeditated merger plan for the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Reference to the SPP appears nowhere in NACTS documents.

At the National Press Club, Schoik unveiled a new 28-page document entitled, “North America Next: A Report to President Obama on Building Sustainable Security and Competitiveness.”

In the first of a series of eight recommendations to Obama, NACTS recommended an expansion of the Merida Initiative.

WND has reported on the Merida Initiative under which the U.S. Congress, at the strong urging of the Bush administration, allocated last December a total of $197 million of the $500 million authorized, under a $1.6 billion program.

The Merida Initiative aimed to provide U.S. military assistance in the form of training and equipment to the Mexican military to help it contain the drug cartels.

NACTS second recommendation was to “energize and expand the North American Trilateral Leaders’ Summit” to provide “solutions to needs throughout North America.”

Under this recommendation, NACTS neglected to address whether or not the Obama administration should continue or discontinue the operation of some 30 trilateral bureaucratic working groups organized under SPP to “integrate and harmonize” U.S. laws and regulations into North American laws and regulations across a wide range of policy issues, including border security, transportation, health, energy and the environment.

NACTS recommended the creation of a “revolving fund for infrastructures in North America” in which the three nations would pool resources to “maximize the competitiveness benefit vis-à-vis Asia and Europe and jump-start our collective economic engine.”

WND reported in July 2006 that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, withdrew legislation to create a North American Investment Fund Act – a similar idea to the NACT proposal for an infrastructures fund – after WND pointed out the legislation would have put into place a key piece of Pastor’s plan to create a North American Community.

In his 2001 book “Toward a North American Community,” Pastor argued a North American Development Fund would advance the “North American integration” needed to produce the union as a super-regional government according to the model of the European Union.

Pastor was vice chairman of a May 2005 task force report by the Council on Foreign Relations entitled “Building a North American Community.” Creating a North American Investment Fund was also a key recommendation of the CFR task force report.

The NACTS report also recommended the creation of an “effective trade and transportation plan with Canada and Mexico” as well as creating a common border crossing permit with a “single window” electronic form, a joint customs team and common U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian booths to prevent duplicative border procedures and expedite crossings.

NACTS also recommended creating a North American Greenhouse Gas Exchange to facilitate the type of “cap-and-trade” step toward a global tax the Obama administration has recommended.

This recommendation confirms NACTS has embraced global warming alarmism, as has the Obama administration, despite what WND reports is continued scientific debate on whether or not human emissions of greenhouse gases cause global warming and the new fear of “climate chaos” that recent unusually cold winters have caused anti-carbon fuel advocates to substitute as their new banner.

NACTS’ “North America Next” document repeatedly argues that the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, has been responsible for massive continental job creation.

“Almost 40 million jobs were created n Canada, the U.S. and Mexico between 1993 and 2007, and today,” the executive summary notes, without pointing out that the U.S. trade balances with both Mexico and Canada have become negative under NAFTA.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Statistics, in 1993, the year President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, the U.S. enjoyed a nearly $1.7 billion favorable balance of trade with Mexico, exporting approximately $41.6 billion and importing approximately $39.9 billion.

By 2008, the trade balance had reversed, such that the U.S. had a negative $64.4 billion trade balance in Mexico’s favor, after the U.S. exported approximately $151.5 billion to Mexico and imported $215.9 billion.

With Canada, the U.S. in 1993 already had a $10.7 billion negative trade balance, which had expanded to a $74.2 billion negative by the end of last year.

What these data would suggest is that the net new jobs created under NAFTA in North America are likely being created in Mexico and Canada, not in the U.S.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. manufacturing sector has lost approximately 4 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, nearly 25 percent of the total manufacturing workforce.

Partner universities for the ASU North American Center for Transborder Studies include four Mexican universities and two in Canada.

Also included on the trilateral Board of Advisors is Stephen Blank, co-director of the North American Transportation Competitiveness Research Council.

Blank has been the driving force behind the North America Works II conference held in Kansas City, Mo., Dec. 1-2, 2006. The meeting was organized by the David Rockefeller-created Council of the Americas to discuss “North American competitiveness” and the SPP.

Pastor and Blank are joined on the NACTS board by fellow North American Forum on Integration, or NAFI, board member Christine Frechette, the founding president and executive director of NAFI.

As WND has reported, NAFI conducts an annual “North American Model Parliament” in which 100 university students from the U.S., Canada and Mexico participate in an exercise in which they simulate a North American parliamentary meeting in which the students role-play North American legislators, lobbyists and journalists.

American University continues to list Pastor as on sabbatical, but the university media relations office told WND he has returned.

The NACTS Board of Advisor lists Pastor as the director of the Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, D.C.

Yet, WND reported last year that Pastor explained in an e-mail that he had stepped down as vice president of International Affairs at American University and as director of the Center for North American Studies in the Office of International Affairs, a program he had headed since he began at American University in 2002.

Last year, WND also confirmed that American University President Neil Kerwin had decided to shut down Pastor’s Office of International affairs.

The university media relations office told WND in a phone call that there is no current phone number for the Office of International Affairs.

The number the university media relations gave WND as the phone number for the Center for North American Studies was answered as “The Elders.”

WND has reported that Pastor had begun working with The Elders, a conflict-resolution group of world figures, including Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter.

A WND e-mail to The Elders asking to determine Pastor’s relation with group went unanswered.

A WND phone call to Pastor was also not immediately returned.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

The $410 billion omnibus funding bill headed toward President Obama’s desk for signing contains a carefully worded measure that would shut down the Bush administration demonstration project allowing 100 Mexican trucking companies to run their long-haul rigs throughout the U.S. in direct competition with American truckers.

The issue became rancorous over the past two years as Bush administration Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters fought off repeated efforts by Congress to confine Mexican trucks to a narrow 20-mile-wide commercial area north of the southern border.

In what appears to be a major victory for Teamster boss James Hoffa, the Obama administration worked closely with Senate Democrats, including Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota to toughen up language of an amendment Dorgan successfully had inserted in the DOT fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill.

Keeping Mexican trucks south of the border appears to be a reward to organized labor for its support of Obama’s presidential campaign last year.

The move comes as a blow to free trade advocates in the Republican Party that have pushed hard for new ways to open the Mexican border for increased opportunities between the two countries.

“The driving public is put at risk when trucks from Mexico that don’t meet U.S. standards are allowed to roam our highways,” Hoffa said in a statement. “The Mexican government has not held up their end of the bargain to meet U.S. standards.”

Hoffa said Mexican trucks are “unsafe and Mexican drivers are not required to meet the same criteria that American drivers must meet to earn a commercial drivers license.” Hoffa said.

“It’s long past time to close the border to these unguided missiles,” he said.

WND reported that after the truck project begun, an examination of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration database revealed hundreds of safety violations by Mexican long-haul rigs rolling on U.S. roads under the project.

Opponents of the project have contended that Mexican trucks and truck drivers do not reliably meet U.S. standards.

As WND reported, in a contentious Senate hearing last March, Dorgan in tight questioning got Peters to admit that Mexican drivers were being designated at the border as “proficient in English” even though they could explain U.S. traffic signs only in Spanish.

In the tense hearing, Dorgan accused Peters of being “arrogant” and recklessly disregarding a congressional vote to stop the Mexican project by taking funds away.

As WND reported, opposition in the House was led by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who in September 2007 accused the Bush administration of having a “stealth plan” to allow Mexican long-haul rigs on U.S. roads.

“This administration [of President George W. Bush] is hell-bent on opening our borders,” DeFazio said, “but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and trucks.”

Previously, Peters had argued the wording of the Dorgan amendment did not prohibit the Transportation Department from stopping a Mexican truck project already underway, even if the measure prohibited DOT from starting any new project.

Despite strong congressional opposition, the Department of Transportation under President Bush had announced it planned in its final months to extend the truck project for another two years – an attempt to force the incoming Obama administration to comply.

The restrictions passed in the Omnibus Funding Bill will limit Mexican trucks to a 20-mile commercial zone north of the Mexican border, except in Arizona, where the limit is 75 miles.

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?
• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation

The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

~ Federalist Paper No. 8, in which Alexander Hamilton displayed an atypical ardor to defend liberty against state power.

“We no longer have a civilian-led government.”

This ominous conclusion comes to us from Thomas A. Schweich, who held the title of deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement affairs in the Bush Regime, by way of a December 21 Washington Post op-ed column. Lamenting “the silent military coup d’etat that has been steadily gaining ground below the radar screen of most Americans and the media,” Schweich describes the infusion of the military “into a striking number of aspects of civilian government” as “the most unnerving legacy of the Bush administration.”

Schweich is not an advocate of limited-government who managed to burrow deeply into the Bu’ushist Welfare/Warfare State; he is an advocate of “soft power” imperialism, the supposedly benign variety that focuses more on hectoring foreigners about their shortcomings, rather than unceremoniously bombing them into blood pudding. Oh, sure – even “soft power” imperialism involves the threat and occasional practice of bombing, but usually only amid cries of anguished reluctance following the performance of the proper multilateralist sacraments. (For useful examples, consult the Clinton-era bombing campaigns in the former Yugoslavia.)

Schweich seems particularly miffed that the military shouldered aside the State Department’s efforts to train civilian “law enforcement” personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Pentagon’s habit of Bogarting all of the boodle set aside for “reconstruction” projects.

But even though his protests have the sectarian flavor of bureaucratic in-fighting, Scweich validates his shocking announcement of the demise of civilian government with some very solid examples. For instance, the military’s domination of law enforcement training in Iraq and Afghanistan have created police forces that “have been unnecessarily militarized – producing police officers who look more like militia members than ordinary beat cops. These forces now risk becoming paramilitary groups, well armed with US equipment, that could run roughshod” over civilian governments.

While this and other “military takeovers of civilian functions” took place “a long distance from home,” Schweich elaborates, the same all-devouring militarism is at work here as well.

Witness the huge and expanding role played by the military in narcotics enforcement, including the hugely expensive “Merida Initiative” through which the Bush Regime has collaborated with Mexico’s narcotics syndicates (which are, to use a common term on this side of the border, public-private partnerships) to propagate unprecedented violence and misery in that country.

The most important example Schweich lists is the Pentagon’s plan “to deploy 20,000 U.S. soldiers inside our borders by 2011, ostensibly to help state and local officials respond to terrorist attacks or other catastrophes. But that mission could easily spill over from emergency counterterrorism work into border-patrol efforts, intelligence gathering and law enforcement efforts – which would run smack into the Posse Comitatus Act…. So the generals are not only dominating our government activities abroad, at our borders and in Washington, but they also seem to intend to spread out across the heartland of America.”

While Schweich’s concern and candor do him credit, his warnings are tantamount to urging that we secure the barn door long after the prize stallion has fled, been butchered, and graced a Frenchman’s dinner table.

The military “spill-over” into domestic law enforcement that he warns against began as a trickle in 1981 with passage of the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Act. That trickle is now a cascade as voluminous and consistent of any found in Niagara Falls. Once again, this is chiefly – but not entirely – due to the so-called War on Drugs.

The eyes of the military are upon you: Active-duty military personnel collect photographs of anti-war activists during a 2002 Washington, D.C. protest against the then-impending Iraq war.

For some time, military involvement in domestic intelligence gathering has included personal surveillance of political activists; more recently, this has expanded to the use of spy satellites to monitor political protests on behalf of militarized law enforcement bodies. While Schweich is properly alarmed by the way the Pentagon has created Iraqi and Afghan police forces that are little more than miniature armies of occupation, he apparently hasn’t noticed that the same process is well underway here in the United States as well.

In some ways, Schweich’s jeremiad is a good update and companion piece to Brig. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap’s prescient essay “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012,” published in the Winter 1992–93 issue of the U.S. Army War College journal Parameters.

Written in the form of a smuggled prison letter composed by “Prisoner 222305759,” condemned to death for “treason” by the American military junta of Gen. E.T. Brutus, Dunlap’s essay described many trends that he feared would culminate in “a military that controls [the American] government and one that, ironically, can’t fight.”

As government corruption and ineptitude grew, “The one institution of government in which people retained faith was the military,” explained Dunlap’s literary stand-in. The military was thus burdened with countless tasks unrelated to warfare – from law enforcement, to supplementing the work of doctors and teachers, from environmental preservation efforts to bolstering the financially stricken airline industry. (Dunlap, incidentally, extensively documents how the military was either active, or planning to become involved, in all of those missions by the early 1990s.)

Likewise, the military’s missions abroad were increasingly Operations Other Than War (OOTW), a term that came into vogue subsequent to publication of Dunlap’s essay. At the same time, a cultural dissonance grew between the military and the public it was supposedly serving.

The structural defects in this new model military were displayed to painful effect in what the author describes (by way of prediction, remember) as “the wretched performance of our forces in the Second Gulf War,” particularly following Iran’s intervention in 2010: “Preoccupation with humanitarian duties, narcotics interdiction, and all the rest of the peripheral missions left the military unfit to engage an authentic military opponent.”

While the military was no longer well-suited to fight and win wars (including, of course, patently unjust wars of aggression), its subtle and thoroughgoing integration into every element of domestic life made it perfectly suited to carry out a coup: “Eventually, people became acclimated to seeing uniformed military personnel patrolling their neighborhood. Now troops are an adjunct to almost all police forces in the country. In many of the areas where much of our burgeoning population of elderly Americans live – [military dictator] Brutus calls them ‘National Security Zones’ – the military is often the only law enforcement agency. Consequently, the military was ideally positioned in thousands of communities to support the coup.”

Very little of consequence separates the speculative world described by Dunlap from the one in which we presently live. One institutional impediment is the Posse Comitatus Act (or whatever remains of it), which was intended to prevent direct involvement of the military in domestic law enforcement.

But this measure, which was always a tissue-paper barricade at best, is all but extinct as we near the end of the Bush era. And the ranks of military scholars are planted thickly with people devising arguments to destroy whatever may remain of the Posse Comitatus proscriptions.

In a paper published by the US Army War College in early 2006, Lt. Col. Mark C. Weston of the U.S. Air Force Reserve points out that the Posse Comitatus Act has been perforated with “exceptions” practically since it was passed in 1878. (Just weeks after signing the act – passage of which was part of a deal that ensured his presidency – Rutherford B. Hayes deployed the Army to carry out police functions in New Mexico.)

One of the biggest exceptions deals with what could be called the use of “civilian” police as military proxies, since the Pentagon is permitted “to provide equipment, transportation, training, supplies, and services to law enforcement officials as long as it does not directly and actively participate in law enforcement tasks,” writes Weston. Which is to say that it’s permissible to militarize the police, as long as troops aren’t actually the ones pulling triggers and conducting arrests. This is, once again, exactly the same procedure being used to create the Afghan and Iraqi “militias” described by Thomas Schweich.

There are six formal exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act listed in Title 32, Sec. 215.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Weston writes. To that list, he rather audaciously adds “One final exception worthy of discussion [namely] the concept of martial law.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1866 Ex Parte Milligan decision, Weston insists that martial law can properly be said to exist only in “the absence of order, courts, and constitution…. Martial law is the use of force by the military to maintain order by acting as the police, the court, and the legislature…. If the courts are open then [use of the term] martial law is not appropriate.”

Most domestic deployments of the military don’t cross the threshold of martial law, Weston maintains, and he eagerly recommends making it easier for the military to carry out such missions by repealing the Posse Comitatus Act (or PCA). From Weston’s perspective, the PCA, which was never a good idea, has long since fallen into desuetude. He insists that the Act should either be repealed outright or modified in such a fashion as to make it entirely inconsequential.

Posse Comitatus, Weston writes, is “a significant obstacle to unified action on homeland security … an impediment to agility and adaptability of the military to national defense … [a hindrance to] national values and national purpose.” Yet he prefers to “modify” the Act rather than abolish it, apparently to maintain – for now – the useful fiction that military and police powers remain separate, with civilian officials firmly in control of the former.

In an October 2000 essay entitled “The Myth of Posse Comitatus,” Major Craig T. Trebilcock, a JAG officer in the U.S. Army Reserve offers an assessment quite similar to that of Lt. Col. Weston: The PCA is useless but not harmless, and best ignored if it can’t be dispensed with.

The only value of the PCA, according to Trebilcock, is the fact that “it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter.” For example, it can result in administrative punishment or even criminal prosecution of “a lower-level commander who uses military forces to pursue a common felon or to conduct sobriety checkpoints off of a federal military post.”

As of December 12 – when active-duty U.S. Marines conducted a joint highway sobriety checkpoint with California Highway Patrol officers – that example can be crossed off Trebilcock’s list.

In his book An Empire Wilderness, Robert D. Kaplan describes a strategic planning session held at Ft. Leavenworth’s Battle Command Training Program shortly after the April 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing (a tragedy directly facilitated by several of the Regime’s three-letter agencies). One of the participants, a Marine Major named Craig Tucker, predicted that the threat of terrorism and domestic turmoil suggested that the military would have to “go domestic.”

While that prediction has been fulfilled, the process has yet to be fully consummated. On the continuum described by none other than Gen. George S. Patton – who considered domestic military deployment as the “most distasteful” form of service – we are presently somewhere between routine involvement of military personnel “in connection with Domestic Disturbances” and “Martial Law.” That continuum ends with “Military Government,” which differs from Martial Law in that it represents the complete abolition of civilian authority, as opposed to the enforcement of a civilian ruling elite’s will through direct military force.

God forgive us, if He can: Iraqi mourners display the lifeless body of an infant killed during a chemical weapons attack by US occupation troops. The burn marks on the child’s body are the result of an attack using white phosphorous munitions. In a 1932 essay on domestic military deployments, Gen. George S. Patton – who ironically took care to avoid needless civilian casualties during World War II – recommended the use of white phosphorous to suppress insurrection.

In administering either Martial Law or Military Government, Patton – predictably enough – prescribed the pitiless application of lethal force. He digested his doctrine of domestic military missions into what he called “The Law and the Prophets of Riot Duty,” a canon that includes the following directives:

• “Take no orders from civil officials – federal, state, or municipal.”

• “You may and should cooperate with police or state troops who may be present; but you and not they are the judge of the amount and character of this cooperation.”

• “Should some orator start haranguing the crowd and inciting them to violence, grab him even if it brings on a local, small fight. Small fights are better than big ones. Words cunningly chosen change crowds into mobs.”

• “Warn newspapers, theaters, and churches that if they encourage the mob, they are guilty of aiding them and that their leaders will be held personally accountable. Freedom of the press cannot be construed as ‘license to encourage’ the armed enemies of the United States of America. An armed mob resisting federal troops is an armed enemy. To aid an enemy is TREASON. This may not be the ‘law,’ but it is fact. When blood starts running, the law stops.”

• “If you have captured a dangerous agitator and some ‘misguided’ federal judge issues a writ of Habeas Corpus for him, try to see the judge to find out what he is liable to do…. There’s always the danger that the man might attempt to escape. If he does, see that he at least falls out of ranks before you shoot him. To be soft hearted might mean death to your men. After all, WAR IS WAR.”

• “As in all military operations, information is vital. By the use of detectives, soldiers in civilian clothes, and friendly citizens, get all possible information about the condition within the city.”

• “The use of gas is paramount…. While tear gas is effective, it should be backed up with vomiting gas.”

• “Although white phosphorous is incendiary, it is useful in forming a screen for the attack of barricades and defended houses.”

• “If you must fire, DO A GOOD JOB. A few casualties become martyrs; a large number becomes an object lesson.”

These admonitions, remember, were issued with respect to the use of military force against American citizens by a man revered as a patriotic hero by millions (including some lately given to second thoughts) – and who, ironically enough, was almost certainly assassinated by the same State he served with such ruthlessness.

Patton’s model for a domestic counter-insurgency “war” during the last depression would probably resemble the approach used by the military in dealing with serious internal upheaval in the depression that has just begun.

Significantly, Patton’s tactics track very closely with those employed to enforce US occupation of Iraq – including the use of hideous white phosphorous munitions. That occupation is supposedly slated to end in 2011 – the same year, incidentally, when the military’s 20,000-man Homeland Security force is supposed to be fully deployed.

If the conclusion voiced by Thomas Schweich and other very credible analysts is correct – if, indeed, we are living under a de facto military junta, the nature of which will become clear as the economic collapse strips away all politically comfortable pretenses – we may soon learn, in the most painful way possible, that our military missions abroad have been carefully training the occupation force that will extinguish whatever remains of our liberty. W N Grigg

Related Posts:

• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• The Shadow Money Lenders: The Real Significance of The Fed’s Zero-Interest-Rate Policy
• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis

GORDON BROWN hailed Barack Obama’s election victory as a “dawn of hope” last night as he urged the United States to join Europe in building a new world order.

The Prime Minister used his annual foreign policy address to the City of London to call on fellow world leaders to “seize the moment” and lay foundations for the “first truly global society”.

He also reiterated the need for governments to inject more funds into their economies and resist the temptation to retreat into protectionism and isolationism in the face of the economic downturn.

Addressing the Lord Mayor of London’s banquet at the Guildhall, he said: “Just days ago, across the Atlantic, our closest ally gave new meaning to its founding creed that all are created equal; gave new strength to the notion that the American dream is for all Americans.

“Whatever one’s politics, it can surely only be a source of hope and inspiration that a nation which once would have looked at Barack Obama and defined him only by his colour today sees in him the man they want to be their President and commander-in-chief.

“As America stands at its own dawn of hope so let that hope be fulfilled through a pact with the wider world to lead and shape the 21st century as the first century of a truly global society.

“I believe that with the far-sighted leadership we have in Europe, the whole of Europe can and will work closely with the rest of the world to meet the great challenges which will illuminate our convictions and test our resolution.”

Mr Brown, who will join world leaders at a financial summit in Washington this week, added that major powers had to decide whether “to be cowed by our fears or led by our hopes” during the tough times ahead.

“I want this to become the moment when we rise to the new challenges by purposeful visionary and international leadership, leaving behind the orthodoxies of yesterday and embracing new ideas to create a better tomorrow, not as the victims of history but as shapers of an open, free trade, flexible globalisation that is also inclusive and sustainable.”

Mr Brown welcomed plans by Mr Obama and the governments of China and Germany to pump more money into their economies.

He quoted President Franklin Roosevelt, who led the US through a global recession during the 1930s: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

“When fear overwhelms our perceptions or reality the effect is paralysing; it leaves people frozen into inaction, helpless at a time of great risk and even at a time of great opportunity too,” Mr Brown said. “But confidence in the future… is the key to bringing back confidence today.

“I am confident. Confident that we can seize the moment, grasp it together and use it to lay the foundations – optimistic, multilateralist and inclusive – on which we can build the first truly global society.”

Related Posts:

• Bailout for the People
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• America’s “Money Machine”

Related Posts:

• Resist or Become Serfs
• The Shadow Money Lenders: The Real Significance of The Fed’s Zero-Interest-Rate Policy
• A Tapestry of Lies
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

Yahoo News: “The First Truly Global President”

PARIS – Barack Obama’s election as America’s first black president unleashed a renewed love for the United States after years of dwindling goodwill, and many said Wednesday that U.S. voters had blazed a trail that minorities elsewhere could follow.

People across Africa stayed up all night or woke before dawn to watch U.S. history being made, while the president of Kenya — where Obama’s father was born — declared a public holiday.

In Indonesia, where Obama lived as child, hundreds of students at his former elementary school erupted in cheers when he was declared winner and poured into the courtyard where they hugged each other, danced in the rain and chanted “Obama! Obama!”

“Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place,” South Africa’s first black president, Nelson Mandela, said in a letter of congratulations to Obama.

Many expressed amazement and satisfaction that the United States could overcome centuries of racial strife and elect an African-American as president.

“This is the fall of the Berlin Wall times ten,” Rama Yade, France’s black junior minister for human rights, told French radio. “America is rebecoming a New World.

“On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes,” she said.

In Britain, The Sun newspaper borrowed from Neil Armstrong’s 1969 moon landing in describing Obama’s election as “one giant leap for mankind.”

Yet celebrations were often tempered by sobering concerns that Obama faces global challenges as momentous as the hopes his campaign inspired — wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the elusive hunt for peace in the Middle East and a global economy in turmoil.

The huge weight of responsibilities on Obama’s shoulders was also a concern for some. French former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said Obama’s biggest challenge would be managing a punishing agenda of various crises in the United States and the world. “He will need to fight on every front,” he said.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. Tensions have been driven to a post-Cold War high by Moscow’s war with U.S. ally Georgia.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Europe, where Obama is overwhelmingly popular, is one region that looked eagerly to an Obama administration for a revival in warm relations after the Bush government’s chilly rift with the continent over the Iraq war.

“At a time when we have to confront immense challenges together, your election raises great hopes in France, in Europe and in the rest of the world,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a congratulations letter to Obama.

Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski spoke of “a new America with a new credit of trust in the world.”

Skepticism, however, was high in the Muslim world. The Bush administration alienated those in the Middle East by mistreating prisoners at its detention center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and inmates at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison — human rights violations also condemned worldwide.

Some Iraqis, who have suffered through five years of a war ignited by the United States and its allies, said they would believe positive change when they saw it.

“Obama’s victory will do nothing for the Iraqi issue nor for the Palestinian issue,” said Muneer Jamal, a Baghdad resident. “I think all the promises Obama made during the campaign will remain mere promises.”

In Pakistan, a country vital to the U.S.-led war on the al-Qaida terrorist network and neighbor to Afghanistan, many hoped Obama would bring some respite from rising militant violence that many blame on Bush.

Still, Mohammed Arshad, a 28-year-old schoolteacher in the capital, Islamabad, doubted Obama’s ability to change U.S. foreign policy dramatically.

“It is true that Bush gave America a very bad name. He has become a symbol of hate. But I don’t think the change of face will suddenly make any big difference,” he said.

Obama’s victory was greeted with cheers across Latin America, a region that has shifted sharply to the left during the Bush years. From Mexico to Chile, leaders expressed hope for warmer relations based on mutual respect — a quality many felt has been missing from U.S. foreign policy.

Venezuela and Bolivia, which booted out the U.S. ambassadors after accusing the Bush administration of meddling in their internal politics, said they were ready to reestablish diplomatic relations, and Brazil’s president was among several leaders urging Obama to be more flexible toward Cuba.

On the streets of Rio de Janeiro, people expressed a mixture of joy, disbelief, and hope for the future.

“It’s the beginning of a different era,” police officer Emmanuel Miranda said. “The United States is a country to dream about, and for us black Brazilians, it is even easier to do so now.”

Many around the world found Obama’s international roots — his father was Kenyan, and he lived four years in Indonesia as a child — compelling and attractive.

“What an inspiration. He is the first truly global U.S. president the world has ever had,” said Pracha Kanjananont, a 29-year-old Thai sitting at a Starbuck’s in Bangkok. “He had an Asian childhood, African parentage and has a Middle Eastern name. He is a truly global president.”

Related Posts:

• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• The Target is Iran: Israel’s Latest Gamble May Backfire
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!

The story opens in 1996 Toronto. Daniel, a veteran and seasoned reporter of the Bilderberg scene, rendezvous with a source in a mall. The encounter is classic cloak and dagger espionage. Estulin makes eye contact with the asset; they walk towards a secure location and exchange words.

“You stopped him this time around,” the informant says, referring to the torrent of leaks about the Bilderberger meeting that Estulin and his friends made to the Canadian press, a meeting where the participants allegedly discussed the breakup of the former British Commonwealth. Yet the man is hardly optimistic about the endgame, believing that the potential dissolution of the union was only postponed. It sounds like an episode out of an old John Le Carre novel, too good to be true. However, in successive chapters Estulin documents the extraordinary level of influence that Bilderbergers as a whole have, ranging from politics to the economy.

While some of his theories are exercises in wishful thinking, others, such as those surrounding its role in the 1973 energy crisis, are unsettling in light of current events. A quick browse through the postscript- a collection of documents and analyses that Estulin is said to have risked his own life to attain- confirms this assessment. However, in other respects the tome is hyperbolic and alarmist. Contrary to his claims, the group is far from being monolithic or unanimous on every issue, and some of his own research supports this.

Several of the vignettes, such as the interrogation scene in Italy, portray a paranoia bordering on a persecution complex, and as the author’s purported links to the KGB attest, there is still much to suspect about what we are being told. On balance, though, it is an informative read, albeit more offbeat than some would hope. However in light of the extraordinary hardship the author has faced, it is worth at least a cursory read. This is not a Nobel Prize winning book, and many of the claims it makes do not rise to the standard of truth that some in the media would prefer. Yet in terms of the amount of hard data that Estulin has collected, it is perhaps the only authoritative book on the subject that has been offered.

This is a book worth reading, if only to challenge our preconceived notions about the way the world works. But don’t check the skeptic hat at the door, and as always, consider the source.

Related Posts:

• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• Bailout for the People
• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

1. That when or if the President of the United States, the Congress of
the United States or any other federal agent or agency declares the
Constitution of the United States to be suspended or abolished, if the
President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial
law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more
of the states without the consent of that state or if any federal
order attempts to make it unlawful for individual Americans to own
firearms or to confiscate firearms, the State of Arizona, when joined
by thirty-four of the other fifty states, declares as follows:

that the states resume all state powers delegated by the Constitution
of the United States and assume total sovereignty; that the states
re-ratify and re-establish the present Constitution of the United
States as the charter for the formation of a new federal government,
to be followed by the election of a new Congress and President and the
reorganization of a new judiciary, similarly following the precedent
and procedures of the founding fathers; that individual members of the
military return to their respective states and report to the Governor
until a new President is elected; that each state assume a negotiated,
prorated share of the national debt; that all land within the borders
of a state belongs to the state until sold or ceded to the central
government by the state’s Legislature and Governor; and that once
thirty-five states have agreed to form a new government, each of the
remaining fifteen be permitted to join the new confederation on
application.

Related Posts:

• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• Bailout for the People
• The Posse Comitatus Act and Homeland Security
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world

Wayne Madsen a Washington based investigative journalist, author, columnist and former U.S. Naval Officer is reporting a document called the “C & R” document is being passed around among senior members of Congress and their staff.

Bush planning martial law

FEMA sources have told Madsen that the Bush administration is putting final touches on a plan that would initiate martial law in the event of continuing economic collapse causing massive social unrest, bank closures resulting in violence against financial institutions and another fraudulent presidential election that would result in rioting in major cities and campuses around the country.

Troops on American streets

In addition to FEMA sources, Army Corps of Engineer sources report that the assignment of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade to NorthCom to augment FEMA and federal law enforcement for the purpose of traffic control, crowd control, curfews, enhanced border and port security, and neighborhood patrols in the event a national emergency being declared.

America may default on it’s loans

The “C & R” document reportedly states that if the United States defaults on loans and debt underwritten from China, Japan and Russia and America unilaterally cancels the debts, America can expect a war that will have disastrous results for the United States and the world.

“Conflict” is the “C word” in the document.

Washington fears a popular Revolution

The other possibility discussed in the document is that the federal government will be forced to drastically raise taxes in order to pay off debts to foreign countries to the point that the American people will react with a popular revolution against the government.

“Revolution” is the document’s “R” word.

Source

Source

Related Posts:

• Forums
• EXCLUSIVE… 9/11, What’s Wrong With This Picture?
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• What To Expect When Martial Law Is Declared
• Sonia Sotomayor on Gun Rights and Racial Preferences

Related

Leaders Call for Global Currency

A Coming New Currency!

Related Posts:

• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization
• Bailout for the People
• America’s “Money Machine”
• Nothing More Than Inflation, Voodoo Finance And Smoke And Mirrors
• The Wall Street Ponzi Scheme called Fractional Reserve Banking

1. USA Patriot Act – A 342 page document presented to Congress one day before voting on it that allows the government access to your bank and email accounts, as well as your medical and phone records with no court order. They can also search your home anytime without a warrant.
2. USA Patriot Act II – This one allows secret government arrests, the legal authority to seize your American citizenship, and the extraction of your DNA if you are deemed a potential terrorist.
3. Military Commissions Act of 2006 – Ends habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, and the right to court review of one’s detention and arrest. Without this most basic right, all other rights are gone too since anyone can be detained indefinitely. Now anyone may be arrested and incarcerated and nobody would know.
4. NSPD 51 – A directive signed by George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, that allows the President to declare martial law, effectively transforming the U.S. into a dictatorship with no checks and balances from the Legislative or Judicial Branches. Parts of this directive are considered classified and members of Congress have been denied the right to review it.
5. Protect America Act of 2007 – Allows unprecedented domestic wiretapping and surveillance activities with a reduction in FISA court oversight. Probable cause is not needed.
6. John Warner Defense Authorization Act – Signed by George W. Bush on October 17, 2007, this act allows the President to declare a public emergency and station troops anywhere in America without the consent of the governor or local authorities to “suppress public disorder.
7. Homegrown Terrorism and Radicalization Act – Passed overwhelmingly by Congress on October 23, 2007, is now awaiting a Senate vote. This act will beget a new crackdown on dissent and the Constitutional rights of American citizens. The definitions of “terrorism” and “extremism” are so vague that they could be used to generalize against any group that is working against the policies of the Administration. In this bill, “violent radicalization” criminalizes thought and ideology while “homegrown terrorism” is defined as “the planed use of force to coerce the government.” The term, “force” could encompass political activities such as protests, marches, or any other form of non-violent resistance.

So when you add in:

1. Halliburton Confirms Camps Constructed
2. Halliburton’s Immigrant Detention Centers
3. Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps
4. Halliburton Confirms Concentration Camps Already Constructed
5. KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M
6. This from Halliburton’s own website

It starts to get a little scary.”

Related Posts:

• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• Career Army officer sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11

ABC’s David Wright checks in after Senator McCain’s appearance at the Urban League.

“Answering a question about his approach to combatting crime, John McCain suggested that military strategies currently employed by US troops in Iraq could be applied to high crime neighborhoods here in the US. McCain called them tactics ’somewhat like we use in the military…You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement.’ The way he described it, his approach sounded an awful lot like the surge. As part of his argument, McCain praised the crime-fighting efforts of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; Urban League president Marc Morial countered that while New York did experience a drop in crime under Giuliani, there were several major instances of police misconduct. To which McCain promised aggressive prosecution of civil rights violations and a Justice Department free from political cronyism.”

Related Posts:

• Looting Social Security
• Bailout for the People
• The Trilateral Commission, John, Hillary, Obama, and the NWO of Feudalism
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?
• U.S. Economy in Free Fall, Why is the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in this picture?