Members of Congress were told they could face martial law if they didn’t pass the
bailout bill. This will not be the last time.
Rep. Brad Sherman, on the White House’s threat to install Martial Law (short video)
Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out “Crowd
By Naomi Wolf
08/10/08 “AlterNet” — Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing “unruly individuals,” and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.
George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the “War on Terror,” the U.S. is at war
around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a
He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the
event of a loosely defined “insurrection” or many other “conditions” he has the power to
identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus — habeas corpus
prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial — in the event of an
“insurrection.” With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or
angry voters “insurgents” staging an “insurrection” is strengthened.
U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C-Span and
viewable on YouTube, that individual members of the House were threatened with
martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill:
“The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic
atmosphere. ? Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against
this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”
If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are
willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.
I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon
“If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?”
“Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy
of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders.”
“But these orders are now legal?'”
“If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop
“Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken.”
“If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?”
“What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the
“Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq — send a tank down a street in Washington
and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they
were firing at something else.”
“What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against
“They’d probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five
years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters — reservists who
refused to go back to Iraq — got longer sentences than war criminals.”
“Does Congress have any military of their own?”
“No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the
National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares.”
“Who can arrest the President?”
“The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment.”
[Note: Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has asserted it is possible for District Attorneys
around the country to charge President Bush with murder if they represent districts
where one or more military members who have been killed in Iraq formerly resided.]
“Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?”
“Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus — which has prevented, with a
penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending
military forces into our streets — with a ‘signing statement.’ He should be impeached
immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and
mercenary forces against U.S. citizens”
“Should Americans call on senior leaders in the Military to break publicly with this
action and call on their own men and women to disobey these orders?”
“Every senior military officer’s loyalty should ultimately be to the Constitution. Every
officer should publicly break with any illegal order, even from the President.”
“But if these are now legal. If they say, ‘Don’t obey the Commander in Chief,’ what
happens to the military?”
“Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in
the current illegal war. That’s what would be considered a coup.”
“But it’s a coup already.”
Naomi Wolf is the author of Give Me Liberty (Simon and Schuster, 2008), the sequel to
the New York Times best-seller The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young
Patriot (Chelsea Green, 2007).
Give me Liberty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI (30 mins)
“The Warrior Creed”, every soldier now carries this, Robert Fisk 3 minute Video
From Richard Moore
I am amazed at how many of you have been sending me messages about the elections, most of them telling me how bad McCain is, and the rest campaigning for Obama as if he was the second coming. I’ve been trying to figure out why this is. Neither candidate is proposing to end our policy of military aggression, both support the financial bailout / sell-out, neither talks about the Patriot Acts and the destruction of the Constitution, neither has any kind of recovery plan in the manner of an FDR, and neither talks about any substantial issues in their campaigns. Obama’s main advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of modern US aggressive imperialism. The Democrats have totally supported Bush at every step, and it was the Democrats, more than the Republicans who pushed through the bailout fiasco. I’m not arguing for McCain or the Republicans, not at all, but I have a very hard time understanding why people think a Democrat President will make any kind of real difference in how the country is run.
I do have a theory, however, about where all this energy comes from, this irrational support for Obama on the one side, or McCain on the other. The game works this way… The Republicans field a President-Vice-President team that liberals will hate, and the Democrats field a team that conservatives will hate. That’s the reason for Palin. She has nothing at all to offer other than the fact that she’s totally abhorrent to anyone with any kind of liberal sensibilities. Fear and loathing are strong motivators, and I think this explains why people allow themselves to be captured by the pointless electoral circus.
It’s a very effective game. It is not necessary that anyone actually like their own candidates, it is only necessary that they fear and hate the other candidate. There is no necessity for either candidate to express any kind of vision or comprehensive program, because people are mainly concerned that their candidate score debating points against the hated opponent. To the extent either candidate has anything positive to say, that is limited to stroking the egos of their supporters, spouting meaningless rhetoric that appeals to their constituency’s psychological profile. The sign of a good con man is that he appears to be trustworthy and honest to his mark (constituency). As Walter Cronkite put it, when asked what makes for a good news anchor, “the ability to lie convincingly”.
It is important to understand what the actual job description of the Presidency is, post-JFK. It has nothing to do with running the country or making decisions. That is all handled by the Cabinet and other advisors, people who are selected by the ruling elite and are not elected. These advisors are typically on loan from the major corporations, law firms, and financial institutions, and their loyalties remain with their ‘real’ employer, and with the elite agendas laid down for them. Cheney is a perfect example of this, on loan from Halliburton, and using his position to assign extremely lucrative government contracts to that company – while at the same time pursuing the agendas of the banking elite. Everyone in Washington knows that Cheney has been the real CEO of the ‘Bush’ regime, up until this recent bailout coup.
Henry Paulson (King Henry I) is an even better example, being part of the elite financial community. His loyalties are entirely with Wall Street, and the bailout bill gives him, as Secretary of the Treasury, essentially dictatorial powers over the US economy. 1913 is the year the banking elite achieved behind-the-scenes control over America, and 2008 is the year they achieved direct control. Paulson’s new role is comparable to that of Herr Krupp in the Third Reich, who was made OberFührer of all industry in Germany and the occupied territories. This kind of direct dictatorial control is a clear sign of fascism. If you haven’t seen Naomi Wolf’s recent videos, I recommend watching them ASAP, while we still have YouTube and the Internet. As she says, we are now in the 1933 Nazi scenario, just prior to the Storm Troopers dissolving by force the democratically elected parliament (Reichstag).
The End of America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs (30 mins)
As for the Presidency, that is actually a PR job, an advertising job. Both as a candidate and as a President, the job description is to make speeches and to present US policy with an appropriate spin. That’s one of the reasons we sometimes have actors like Reagan or Schwartzneger for politicians – actors are experts at playing roles, learning lines, and projecting personas on cue. In Bush’s case, it is intentional that he talk like a fool, because then people assume his personal idiocy is responsible for disastrous policy. Anything to keep you from looking behind the curtain, to see who’s really at the controls. Anything to make you think the next election offers hope.
If Obama wins, he’ll put a liberal spin on policy, just as Clinton did. Interventions will be ‘humanitarian’, and policies will be to ‘help the little people’. If McCain wins, he’ll put a conservative spin on policy, like a Bush or Reagan would do. Interventions will be a show of ‘US strength’, and policies will be to ‘make America strong’. The underlying policies themselves will be decided for other reasons and by other people. A change of Presidents is like a change of advertising campaigns for a soft drink; the product itself still tastes the same, but it now has a new ‘image’.
Elections are one example of a media circus. The OJ Simpson Trial was another example, as was the Monica Lewinsky affair, neither of which was an event of any real significance or interest. There’s usually one useless media circus or another underway at any given time, designed to capture the public imagination and attention, while the real business of empire and politics goes on outside the circus tent. Television is our version of the Roman Colosseum.
At this particular time, on the verge of economic collapse and martial law, we cannot afford to be distracted by this or any other circus. Naomi Wolf expresses the urgency of the moment very eloquently. She’s the Paul Revere of our day, sounding the alarm (Death of America, first video), and she also has useful ideas about popular rebellion. The title of her new book is, Give Me Liberty, A Handbook for American Revolutionaries (see “Give me Liberty” video). Among other things, she talks about how we need to begin dialoging with one another in our communities, overcoming left-right divisions.
To paraphrase a saying I recall from childhood, Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country. The elections are nothing but a distraction, and that’s what they are designed to be. Our attention needs be elsewhere, and below are some more sources worthy of your concerned attention.
Moderator:firstname.lastname@example.org (comments welcome)
More of relevance
Jim Kirwan, Tomorrow The Coup?
Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of Berlin Wall Was for Communism (video & transcript)
Previously sent Naomi Klein video
The silent creep of fascism (video 50 mins)
Be Who You Are, Everyone Else is Already Taken.