Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Shadow Government’ Category

Have you peed your pants yet?

North American Army created without OK by Congress
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies
Posted: February 24, 2008

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

READ FULL

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

This article can be read on the CFR website, here. It can also be read on this page, in full, and explained.

Please watch the videos below, and continue to learn about this outstanding treat to American sovereignty.

Sovereignty and globalisation
Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations
February 17, 2006
Project SyndicatePublic enemy

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds.

Let me translate: There are over 190 countries in the world, they “co-exist” (are in partnership) with “independent actors” such as terrorists and drug cartels, institutions (regional and global), banks and bankers. They even have an acronym for them, the “NGOs“.

The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

He says: Terrorists, drug lords, bankers, etc. have control over these many countries of the world (which isn’t entirely a bad thing). “Sovereignty… is being eroded.”

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states.

In other words, new mechanisms – not the states – are needed to govern the world.

This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

The corporations that are members of the CFR should be the representatives of the world government.

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

States will have to give-up their sovereignty and become subject to the new world order.

This is already taking place in the trade realm.

The new world order agenda has already begun.

Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Governments will prefer to give-up their sovereign rights to the order of the WTO.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.

Global climate change is being used as a “threat” to get governments to concede their sovereignty.

Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.

The Kyoto Protocol was a success, now a successor is needed to get more and larger governments “adopt common standards”.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.

Globalization is the end to sovereignty as we know it.

At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction.

Eliminating borders, globalization increases the flows of everything (including viruses, weapons, pollution, drugs…); contrary to the principals of sovereignty.

Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Sovereign states fear “forces beyond their control”.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker.

Globalisation destroys sovereignty.

States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

“Forces beyond their control” will destroy the sovereignty of states; they cannot defend themselves from globalization.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power.

The fear of terrorism can be used to overthrow government.

Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Iraq showed how a sovereign can be targeted against based only on presumptive (or false) evidence.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

If a government is accused of having intention to use a nuclear device, nothing could protect them.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The ‘war on terror‘ can use the excuse of government scruples to eliminate a state’s sovereignty.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

NATO is an example of violating a sovereign state under the excuse of genocide and mass killing.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

Sovereignties must agree to principals against terrorism, WMDs, and genocide, or they will be open to attack, and remedied, [by another government].

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

Sovereignty must be redefined for “the era of globalization”; to be better suited to an international system of world government.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.

The main challenges to Order are between global forces and states, not between states.

Read Full Post »

Watch the video responses. Show to everyone you know!

Read Full Post »

The Congress is too weak to defend the Constitution and American Freedoms.

Bush and his henchmen may soon have the power to spy on you: search your emails, web activity, downloads, phone calls, etc.

Any information you exchange digitally will become the property of the fascist government.

They’re trying to “protect” us.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

The Military Commissions Act‘s stated purpose is:

“To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.”

The bill limits captives’ access to habeas corpus and has been suggested to be unconstitutional.

According to Wikipedia: This bill redefines unlawful enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is

engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.

This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because

it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.

As such habeas corpus may be denied to US citizens.

Remember, too, that in the 2006 Military Commissions Act, Congress stripped from all these prisoners any meaningful right to utilize our federal courts, thereby defying our own Supreme Court. – Nat Hentoff (Villiage Voice)

Patrick Leahy, United States Senator, commented about the Act:

“Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse—is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill.

Read Full Post »

Benign, compared to the many other horrors

Warning: this video reveals the true, horrid nature of the unconstitutional, imperial, criminal invasion of Iraq by the neocons controlling Washington and the White House.

You may remember this and other photos from the Abu Ghraib torture incident from 2004, and the sick Americans who took their own photos in scenes of abuse.

So compared to what people have been talking about here the pictures are quite benign.Yahia (an Iraqi witness)

[M]any people noted that there was not a frank apology from the president for this incident.Ben Wedeman (CNN)

BBC: Why Democracy

This is not a solitary incident.

Due to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Bush or any other president the power, should he desire, has the power to use such military force within America against anyone who can be declared as ‘an enemy combatant’.

This may include anyone – innocent people, protesters, or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington D.C.

So when you see what the military are capable of and allowed to do, you know: we have a lot to fear.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

U.S. Allies and Neighbors: Bush is World’s Most Dangerous Man

The real terrorists are the people controlling Washington DC.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »