DEE FINNEY'S BLOG
START DATE JULY 20, 2011
TODAY'S DATE JULY 1, 2012
updated 10-5-12
PAGE 247
TOPIC: WWIII ON THE WAY?
On 10-5-12 THE U.S. FLEET IS ON THE WAY TO BAHRAIN.
THEY WILL BE THERE BEFORE THE ELECTION
AT THE SAME TIME, SYRIAN TROOPS SENT MISSILIS INTO TURKEY
AND TURKEY PARLIAMENT VOTED TO RATALIATE WITHOUT CALLING IT WAR
BUT IT IS THE BEGINNING OF WWIII
SPIRIT MESSAGE
WAR - MANKIND - CHANGE NEEDED
9
by Dee Finney
3-28-2002
Thank you for coming. Let us have a word about the war. As you know
Yasser Arafat is calling for an unconditional ceasefire. Yet he has no
control over Hamas or any other group which is determined to undermine
the Peace Plan, which the United States and Israel are 'saying' they are
working towards.
Words are just that - "Words". Words are only worth what the action
behind them 'DO'. So much for Yasser Arafat. He has not followed up on
anything he has said as yet. At the same time, the religion of the Jews
in Israel states that there must be revenge ' an eye for an eye'. There
is no way that Israel is going to stand for having its people bombed
right and left and not do something about it. The United States would
not stand for it and Israel cannot stand for it either. That is justice.
It would be another matter if the perpetrators and the people who hire
the bombers would be jailed, but that is not happening. A cease fire -
means CEASE FIRE - and that can only be held to if BOTH sides do this.
This may be a temporary cease fire because Yasser Arafat is now
afraid that he will be next in the line of fire. That is most plain to
see. He is afraid. He is not afraid for his people because nothing has
stopped him yet - he is afraid for himself at this time. Pictures on
your TV show Yasser Arafat sitting at a table with his head in his hands
- looking very depressed and dejected. He knows he has lost control of
the people. They no longer respect him. He is an old man and must be
deposed. These are not MY words, but those who do not respect him. It
will not be long and Yasser Arafat will no longer be with us. It is time
for him to move on. Alive or dead - he must leave the Peace Plan to
others. He cannot do it without the respect of those who are under him.
We know that WWIII is inevitable. You were told that yourself several
years ago. It is being held off as long as possible, but as it looks,
the longer it is held off, the worse it will be. With weapons of mass
destruction being manufactured in many countries now, it will not take
much to light the fire to set one of them off, and once one is fired
unto another country, then the whole world will have to take up arms and
fight to the death.
That is exactly what will ensue - the fire-fight and then death for
everyone involved. Sometimes death does not come right away, but lingers
and that is a horrible way to die - day by day, hour by hour. Do not
wish that on anyone. Better to be in the middle of a blast than to
linger on - so sick from radiation - that you wish and pray for death to
come to you. That is terrible.
So much for war - there are other things afoot as well. Sometime this
weekend, there will be a big change. If war can be averted that long,
perhaps there will not be a war. Oh! That we could wish for such a
thing. Only a larger event could stop WWIII. A very large event. Be on
the watch for this. It is just moments away in 'time'.
Time is NOW! On other planets, this event has happened before. This
event has occurred on Earth before as well. There were many large
civilizations which are now gone forever - not one soul survived the
conflagration that came upon them. That was a terrible thing to have
happen.
There are many cities at the bottom of the sea. Some of these are
just now being found. Unfortunately, some of the cities which are now on
the land will also end up at the bottom of the sea. One day they will be
there, and the next they will be no more. Be prepared for that. One can
prepare to move away from the seacoast and have control over one's life,
much more easily than to prepare for a war that holds itself over your
heads for years and year and depends on one man's word whether it will
occur or not.
One day soon, the change will come. It will come in a twinkling of an
eye. One blink and the whole world will be different. Just like the
world's consciousness changed after the plane bombings of the World
Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the next change will be even more
horrendous and will change mankind forever, not for just a few months
like this last disaster did. Could one imagine on that horrible day,
that within 6 months, many people just want to move on and not think
about what happened? But that's the way mankind is. Man cannot live in
the past. Man must have a future and man wants a bright and happy
future. Who can blame him? Not I, and I don't live on the earth. But I
know what Man wants and what Man desires. Man desires JOY, and Man
deserves JOY, that is what GOD created man for in the first place. It
was Man who destroyed what Man had. Let us not blame Eve for this, nor
for the Serpent either. This is an old wives' tale - or perhaps better
to say an old Bible tale, that is so far from the truth, it is not worth
repeating. How Mankind could allow such a tale to hold sway over entire
populations for centuries is beyond belief. It is time for that kind of
thinking to end.
Women must rise up and take their place among the living. Women have
been living in the past for long enough. Women are men's equals - not in
strength - we know that, but women tolerate pain much more than men, and
women are much more compassionate and loving, despite what some women do
who are in dire agony from depression and too many children too quickly.
Women must become responsible for what happens to them, and not let any
man tell them what to do with their bodies. We are not talking about
pro-abortion here, we are talking about total control over their own
lives. This world would be a much better place if women were to control
the governments and the raising of the children. We are not advocates of
any particular groups, which I do not wish to name, but women must
become equals with the men. That would make for a much better world. And
pardon me if I repeat myself, but they must do this NOW. Tomorrow might
be too late - I am speaking metaphorically here - not by the clock.
So, keep this in mind as we move forward. I would recommend that
people who read my words, would get down on their knees today and
tonight and take some serious moments to reflect on this world and
volunteer to do something about making positive change. One might only
be able to change what is on your own front doorstep or within your own
walls, but change is mighty and change is necessary.
I will return shortly for more words. Perhaps tomorrow, but then
again, it may be necessary to return today again. Please be aware of my
presence.
NOTE: I stopped doing Spirit messages because all there was to
talk about was WAR and it was too hard to take. However, I still
got visions and dreams, so the work continues but in a different way.
You won't see this on TV unless you have stations we don't have, but
troop movements are gearing up for the start of WWII which oilman
predicted would start as soon as the World Elite were done with Syria,
which is coming to a conclusion soon. You can bet your bottom
dollar, that WWIII will start the same day or within moments when Syria
is doomed to failure.
June 29, 2012
Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E
Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties
have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of
family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.
After Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced new rules of engagement, Turkey
deployed missile batteries, rocket launchers, and anti-aircraft weapons
close to Syria's border.
About 30
military
trucks arrived in Iskenderun. From there, they moved toward Syria's
border 30 miles
away.
Armored military
vehicles also headed for
Sanliurfa and Reyhanli in
Southern Turkey's Hatay
Province.
Tanks from the 17th Mechanized
Division "are now at the
Infantry
School. They're either
preparing to move to the border
to counter the Turkish
deployment or attack the
rebellious (Syrian) towns and
villages in and around the
border zone north of Aleppo."
On Thursday, Turkey
belligerently sent troops and
weapons close to Syria's border.
Damascus perhaps reacted
defensively.
Expect no imminent attack by
either side. Ankara won't act
without orders from Washington.
It hasn't come, but could given
escalating violence and
rhetoric.
Saber rattling suggests public
opinion is being conditioned for
war. On June 28, Ankara's
NationalSecurity
Council
(MSK) said:
Turkey will act with
determination and make use
of all its rights within
international law against
this hostile act.
It referred to Syria downing its
aircraft. It provocatively
entered its territory low and
fast. Damascus was blamed for
Ankara's belligerence. Expect
more provocations to follow.
Meanwhile, Mossad-connected
DEBKAfile
(DF) headlined "Saudi forces
mass on Jordanian, Iraqi
borders. Turkey, Syria reinforce
strength," saying:
(H)eavy Saudi troop
movements (headed) toward
the Jordanian and Iraqi
borders (with Syria)
overnight and up until
Friday morning....after King
Abdulah put the Saudi
military on high alert for
joining an anti-Assad
offensive....
Units include tanks, missiles,
special forces and anti-air
batteries. Two units were
deployed. "One will safeguard
Jordan's King Abdullah against
potential Syrian or Iranian
reprisals from Syria or Iraq."
The second will cut north
through Jordan to enter
southeastern Syrian, where
asecurity zone will be
established around the towns
of Deraa, Deir al-Zour and
Abu Kemal – all centers of
the anti-Assad rebellion.
DF said Western forces reported
Jordan "on war alert."
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan,
and other regional states know
Syria poses no threat. If
confirmed, deploying Saudi
troops to Syria's border
escalates tensions. It may also
reflect belligerent intent.
On June 28,
Assad
was interviewed on Iran's IRIB
channel 4. He blamed Turkey for
inciting violence. He's hopeful
military action won't follow.
Libya's model isn't "a solution
to be copied because it took
(the country) from one situation
into a much worse one. We all
now see how the Libyan people
are paying the price," he said.
"The policies of the Turkish
officials lead to the killing
and bloodshed of the Syrian
people," he added.
He said reports about Iranian
and Hezbollah forces aiding
Syria are false.
This is a joke that we hear
many times in order to show
that a rift has been created
within the army and that
therefore there is not an
army.
Pointing fingers at Washington,
he said:
The colonialist nature of
the West has not changed.
From the colonialist
standpoint, regional
countries should not move
according to their national
interests and if any country
moves against their
(Western) values and
interests, they say no, like
what happened in the case of
Iran’s nuclear program.
Western states are opposed
to Iran’s access to nuclear
knowhow; they are more
fearful of Iran’s expertise
in the nuclear field than
what they claim to be a
nuclear bomb.
He also called insurgents "gangs
of mercenaries and criminals."
Outside forces are directing
them.
For them and their sponsors,
"reforms are not important,
since the very forces that
claimed (a lack of) reforms were
the problem. They never
benefited from them...all they
wanted was (continued) unrest."
He heavily criticized Arab
League states. Their policies
harm their own people. They
supported NATO's war on Libya.
Syria was the only country
that opposed the move and
therefore we had to pay the
price for this policy.
"Consequently, immediately
following our decision," Western
states "acted through the Arab
League to put the attack on
Syria on their agenda."
"This has been the Arab League
reality in the past, as it is at
present."
He acknowledged that
Western-instigated violence
ravages Syria. Thousands of
ceasefire violations occurred.
He has no information about
planned military attacks.
However, some countries "are
making efforts to guide the
situation toward" one.
The West expresses support
for the Annan Plan on the
one hand, while on the other
hand, they seek a plan to
overthrow (the government).
This is the same double
standard (approach) and
political hypocrisy.
Westerners speak of human
rights but give Israel
weapons to kill
Palestinians. This Western
hypocrisy has not changed
and will not change.
He holds "outlaws, saboteurs and
armed terrorist gangs"
responsible for Syrian violence.
He'll continue confronting it
responsibly.
On June 30, Hillary Clinton and
Sergei Lavrov will discuss Syria
in Geneva. Expect no
breakthroughs. Washington wants
regime change.
Moscow wants Syrians alone to
decide who'll lead them. Lavrov
and other Russian officials have
been firm opposing foreign
intervention. Expect neither
side to yield on Saturday.
DF sounded an ominous warning,
saying:
The failure of (US/Russian)
talks "would spell a
worsening of the Syrian
crisis andprecipitate
Western-Arab military
intervention, which
according to military
sources in the Gulf is
scheduled for launch
Saturday, June 30.
Determining when DF is right or
wrong isn't easy. The above
comment sounds like bluster.
It's also about conditioning
public opinion for war. Events
on the ground bear watching.
After Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced new rules of
engagement, Turkey deployed missile batteries, rocket launchers, and
anti-aircraft weapons close to Syria's border.
About 30 military
trucks arrived in Iskenderun. From there, they moved toward
Syria's border 30 miles away.
Armored military
vehicles also headed for Sanliurfa and Reyhanli in Southern
Turkey's Hatay Province.
According to General Mustafa al-Sheikh, Syria deployed around 170
tanks north of Aleppo within 19 miles of Turkey's border. No
independent confirmation was provided.
Speaking to Reuters by phone, al-Sheikh said:
Tanks from the 17th Mechanized Division "are now at the Infantry
School. They're either preparing to move to the border to counter
the Turkish deployment or attack the rebellious (Syrian) towns and
villages in and around the border zone north of Aleppo."
On Thursday, Turkey belligerently sent troops and weapons close
to Syria's border. Damascus perhaps reacted defensively.
Expect no imminent attack by either side. Ankara won't act
without orders from Washington. It hasn't come, but could given
escalating violence and rhetoric.
Saber rattling suggests public opinion is being conditioned for
war. On June 28, Ankara's
National Security Council (MSK) said:
"Turkey will act with determination and make use of all its
rights within international law against this hostile act."
It referred to Syria downing its aircraft. It provocatively
entered its territory low and fast. Damascus was blamed for Ankara's
belligerence. Expect more provocations to follow.
Meanwhile, Mossad-connected
DEBKAfile (DF) headlined "Saudi forces mass on Jordanian, Iraqi
borders. Turkey, Syria reinforce strength," saying:
"(H)eavy Saudi troop movements (headed) toward the Jordanian and
Iraqi borders (with Syria) overnight and up until Friday
morning....after King Abdulah put the Saudi military on high alert
for joining an anti-Assad offensive...."
Units include tanks, missiles, special forces and anti-air
batteries. Two units were deployed. "One will safeguard Jordan's
King Abdullah against potential Syrian or Iranian reprisals from
Syria or Iraq."
"The second will cut north through Jordan to enter southeastern
Syrian, where a security zone will be established around the towns
of Deraa, Deir al-Zour and Abu Kemal – all centers of the anti-Assad
rebellion."
DF said Western forces reported Jordan "on war alert."
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other regional states know
Syria poses no threat. If
confirmed, deploying Saudi troops to Syria's border escalates
tensions. It may also reflect belligerent intent.
On June 28,
Assad was interviewed on Iran's IRIB channel 4. He blamed Turkey
for inciting violence. He's hopeful military action won't follow.
Libya's model isn't "a solution to be copied because it took (the
country) from one situation into a much worse one. We all now see
how the Libyan people are paying the price," he said.
"The policies of the Turkish officials lead to the killing and
bloodshed of the Syrian people," he added.
He said reports about Iranian and Hezbollah forces aiding Syria
are false.
"This is a joke that we hear many times in order to show that a
rift has been created within the army and that therefore there is
not an army."
Pointing fingers at Washington, he said:
"The colonialist nature of the West has not changed. From the
colonialist standpoint, regional countries should not move according
to their national interests and if any country moves against their
(Western) values and interests, they say no, like what happened in
the case of Iran’s nuclear program."
"Western states are opposed to Iran’s access to nuclear knowhow;
they are more fearful of Iran’s expertise in the nuclear field than
what they claim to be a nuclear bomb."
He also called insurgents "gangs of mercenaries and criminals."
Outside forces are directing them.
For them and their sponsors, "reforms are not important, since
the very forces that claimed (a lack of) reforms were the problem.
They never benefited from them...all they wanted was (continued)
unrest."
He heavily criticized Arab League states. Their policies harm
their own people. They supported NATO's war on Libya.
"Syria was the only country that opposed the move and therefore
we had to pay the price for this policy."
"Consequently, immediately following our decision," Western
states "acted through the Arab League to put the attack on Syria on
their agenda."
"This has been the Arab League reality in the past, as it is at
present."
He acknowledged that Western-instigated violence ravages Syria.
Thousands of ceasefire violations occurred. He has no information
about planned military attacks. However, some countries "are making
efforts to guide the situation toward" one.
"The West expresses support for the Annan Plan on the one hand,
while on the other hand, they seek a plan to overthrow (the
government)."
"This is the same double standard (approach) and political
hypocrisy.”
"Westerners speak of human rights but give Israel weapons to kill
Palestinians. This Western hypocrisy has not changed and will not
change."
He holds "outlaws, saboteurs and armed terrorist gangs"
responsible for Syrian violence. He'll continue confronting it
responsibly.
On June 30, Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov will discuss Syria
in Geneva. Expect no breakthroughs. Washington wants regime change.
Moscow wants Syrians alone to decide who'll lead them. Lavrov and
other Russian officials have been firm opposing foreign
intervention. Expect neither side to yield on Saturday.
DF sounded an ominous warning, saying:
"The failure of (US/Russian) talks "would spell a worsening of
the Syrian crisis and precipitate Western-Arab military
intervention, which according to military sources in the Gulf is
scheduled for launch Saturday, June 30."
Determining when DF is right or wrong isn't easy. The above
comment sounds like bluster. It's also about conditioning public
opinion for war. Events on the ground bear watching.
On Thursday, Turkey belligerently sent troops and weapons close
to Syria's border. Damascus perhaps reacted defensively.
Expect no imminent attack by either side. Ankara won't act
without orders from Washington. It hasn't come, but could given
escalating violence and rhetoric.
Saber rattling suggests public opinion is being conditioned for
war. On June 28, Ankara's
National Security Council (MSK) said:
"Turkey will act with determination and make use of all its
rights within international law against this hostile act."
It referred to Syria downing its aircraft. It provocatively
entered its territory low and fast. Damascus was blamed for Ankara's
belligerence. Expect more provocations to follow.
Meanwhile, Mossad-connected
DEBKAfile (DF) headlined "Saudi forces mass on Jordanian, Iraqi
borders. Turkey, Syria reinforce strength," saying:
"(H)eavy Saudi troop movements (headed) toward the Jordanian and
Iraqi borders (with Syria) overnight and up until Friday
morning....after King Abdulah put the Saudi military on high alert
for joining an anti-Assad offensive...."
Units include tanks, missiles, special forces and anti-air
batteries. Two units were deployed. "One will safeguard Jordan's
King Abdullah against potential Syrian or Iranian reprisals from
Syria or Iraq."
"The second will cut north through Jordan to enter southeastern
Syrian, where a security zone will be established around the towns
of Deraa, Deir al-Zour and Abu Kemal – all centers of the anti-Assad
rebellion."
DF said Western forces reported Jordan "on war alert."
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other regional states know
Syria poses no threat. If
confirmed, deploying Saudi troops to Syria's border escalates
tensions. It may also reflect belligerent intent.
On June 28,
Assad was interviewed on Iran's IRIB channel 4. He blamed Turkey
for inciting violence. He's hopeful military action won't follow.
Libya's model isn't "a solution to be copied because it took (the
country) from one situation into a much worse one. We all now see
how the Libyan people are paying the price," he said.
"The policies of the Turkish officials lead to the killing and
bloodshed of the Syrian people," he added.
He said reports about Iranian and Hezbollah forces aiding Syria
are false.
"This is a joke that we hear many times in order to show that a
rift has been created within the army and that therefore there is
not an army."
Pointing fingers at Washington, he said:
"The colonialist nature of the West has not changed. From the
colonialist standpoint, regional countries should not move according
to their national interests and if any country moves against their
(Western) values and interests, they say no, like what happened in
the case of Iran’s nuclear program."
"Western states are opposed to Iran’s access to nuclear knowhow;
they are more fearful of Iran’s expertise in the nuclear field than
what they claim to be a nuclear bomb."
He also called insurgents "gangs of mercenaries and criminals."
Outside forces are directing them.
For them and their sponsors, "reforms are not important, since
the very forces that claimed (a lack of) reforms were the problem.
They never benefited from them...all they wanted was (continued)
unrest."
He heavily criticized Arab League states. Their policies harm
their own people. They supported NATO's war on Libya.
"Syria was the only country that opposed the move and therefore
we had to pay the price for this policy."
"Consequently, immediately following our decision," Western
states "acted through the Arab League to put the attack on Syria on
their agenda."
"This has been the Arab League reality in the past, as it is at
present."
He acknowledged that Western-instigated violence ravages Syria.
Thousands of ceasefire violations occurred. He has no information
about planned military attacks. However, some countries "are making
efforts to guide the situation toward" one.
"The West expresses support for the Annan Plan on the one hand,
while on the other hand, they seek a plan to overthrow (the
government)."
"This is the same double standard (approach) and political
hypocrisy.”
"Westerners speak of human rights but give Israel weapons to kill
Palestinians. This Western hypocrisy has not changed and will not
change."
He holds "outlaws, saboteurs and armed terrorist gangs"
responsible for Syrian violence. He'll continue confronting it
responsibly.
On June 30, Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov will discuss Syria
in Geneva. Expect no breakthroughs. Washington wants regime change.
Moscow wants Syrians alone to decide who'll lead them. Lavrov and
other Russian officials have been firm opposing foreign
intervention. Expect neither side to yield on Saturday.
DF sounded an ominous warning, saying:
"The failure of (US/Russian) talks "would spell a worsening of
the Syrian crisis and precipitate Western-Arab military
intervention, which according to military sources in the Gulf is
scheduled for launch Saturday, June 30."
Determining when DF is right or wrong isn't easy. The above
comment sounds like bluster. It's also about conditioning public
opinion for war. Events on the ground bear watching.
The Fifth Fleet of the
United States Navy is responsible for naval forces
in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and coast off
East Africa as far south as ...
Vicksburg is deployed to the U.S.
5th Fleet area of responsibility conducting
maritime security operations, theater security
cooperation efforts and support ...
27, 2012) Vice Adm. John Miller,
commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S.
Fifth Fleet/Combined Maritime Forces, presents a
plaque to Culinary ...
Naval Support Activity
Bahrain (or NSA Bahrain) is a
United States Navy base,
...is home to U.S.
Naval Forces Central Command and United
States Fifth Fleet.
ADLIYA, Bahrain –
U.S. Navy Sailors assigned to
Maritime Civil Affairs Team...of U.S. Naval
Forces Central Command, U.S. 5th Fleet
and Combined Maritime...
Feb 12, 2012 – First
came the chants: Frenzied teenage voices
full of fury, fear and collective courage,
demanding democracy from a regime reluctant
to give ...
Jul 21, 2011 – THE US Navy is
looking at plans to move its Fifth Fleet
away from Bahrain amid fears over
violence and continued instability in the
Gulf...
Feb 17, 2011 – The
US will be watching developments in
Bahrain anxiously as it is the
headquarters of the US navy's
fifth fleet, which operates at least
one ...
Jun 10, 2011 – The
massive American naval base
provides legitimacy for the autocratic
Bahraini regime, reinforces our
problematic reliance on the Gulf, and ...
U.S. Naval Forces
Central Command / U.S. 5th Fleet,
Manama, Bahrain....The following is a Joint
Security Area Bahrain Liberty
Policy update(2012/99) a. Notes
...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv60s32IzfYFeb
19, 2011 -
2 min
- Uploaded by
newsupload2010
AlJazeeraEnglish | February 18,
2011 Barack Obama, the US
president, has called on
Bahrain to exercise ...
Jun 27, 2012 – The
U.S. Navy has doubled to eight the
number of counter-mine ships in the ...to a statement from the
U.S. 5th Fleet headquarters in
Bahrain.
9-23-09 - VISIONS - Approximately 9 a.m. I got so
tired, I felt like I was going to fall down if I didn't lay
down, so I went to bed to take a nap, but I didn't fall
asleep. So, I decided to meditate a bit, and started off
with prayer as I usually do.
As soon as the prayer was done, a voice said, "With
regard to December 7th!" - and I saw a photo album open up
with colored pictures on the right-hand page of ships at
dock - large ships. These pictures could have been Memorial
Stamps put out by the government.
That vision faded and then the voice said, "And as a
baby turns around!" and the album opened up again, and on
the left-hand page, I was seeing black and white pictures
like one sees of babies in the womb before birth, and the
baby was in the process of getting ready to be born. There
were 6 or 7 photos of the baby as it turned.
Then I had a third vision - this one was of a person
holding a green water hose and the water was shooting out
full blast towards the left.
Lastly, I felt an electrical shock go through my head
from my right ear toward the left, and I knew it was over.
NOTE: The reference to December 7th is ominous,
because I've had visions and dreams about it before about a
New Pearl Harbor attack to occur just like the old one in
1941.
The other thing is that the attack on New York City on
9/11/2001 was also called the Second Pearl Harbor, and I've
written about the Third Pearl Harbor coming. Especially now
with talk about new terror threats especially on Chicago and
perhaps other cities. But it feels to me like the threat is
going to come from the sea this time.
It's hard not to conclude with
historians like Charles Bateson that
"Magic standing alone points so
irresistibly to the
Pearl Harbor attack that it is
...
www.greatdreams.com/war/pearl-harbor-three.htm
Similar to the PNAC yearning for a
"new
Pearl Harbor," Brzezinski
concludes that the realization of such
an agenda will only be accomplished with
the aid of ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/giants-false-flag.htm
9-11-2001 - A horrific event just
occurred which everyone is calling a
'second
Pearl Harbor'. The World Trade
Center twin tower buildings and the
Pentagon ...
www.greatdreams.com/land_forces.htm
Though not a state at the time,
Hawaii was placed under martial law in
1941, following the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor. Many of the
residents of Hawaii ...
www.greatdreams.com/war/third-pearl-harbor
1-9-09 - DREAM - I was on a military
ship in the harbor at Hawaii. There was a large group of
military men on board the ship, but the ones I was looking
at were not in military uniform, they were dressed in black
wet suits. There was a series of events being planned, but
today's was all set to take place.
NOTE: Remember that
President elect Obama was supposedly born in Hawaii, and
several main politicians said that 'something' was going to
happen as soon as Obama is elected that will force him to
make unpopular decisions, thus I am posting this now to make
sure the dream gets posted before the election. Others have
said that a 'false flag' event will probably occur this
coming weekend, before the election so that President Bush
will have to take action in place of Obama before he leaves
office.
back to the dream:
The head guy of this particular group
was large - very impressive. He jumped off the ship into the
harbor - and at that moment I saw the date
December 24, 1901
and then a large bull's eye target.
The dream changed and I was with this
same man and his wife, and they invited me to go to a
concert with them. I could barely walk and I really didn't
feel like following them, so I told them I was going to go
home and change clothes.
I reached what I thought was my
apartment #12, but when I entered the door, there was a
black family living there. The picture window out to the
yard was really large and there were a lot of kids looking
in the window to see what was going on.
I woke up to a song being sung by kids
called 'Soldiering'. I remembered it from when I was a kid.
I was born on December 26, 1938, and grew up during WWII.
"Lili Marleen" (a.k.a. "Lili Marlene",
"Lily Marlene", "Lili Marlène" etc.) is a
German love song which became popular on
both sides during
World War II
The first recording of Lilli Marlen,
2, August, 1939, Electro Studio, Berlin.
The words were written in 1915 during
World War I by Hans Leip (1893-1983), a
school teacher from Hamburg who had been
conscripted into the Imperial German Army.
Leip reportedly combined the names of his
girlfriend and another female friend. The
poem was later published as "Das Lied eines
jungen Soldaten auf der Wacht" ("The Song of
a Young Soldier on Watch") in 1937 now with
the two last (of five) verses added. It was
set to music by
Norbert Schultze in 1938.
Tommie Connor later wrote English
lyrics.
7-1-09 - DREAM - I was in Milwaukee, WI, working at
A-C (Allis-Chalmers) I was going on a trip and before I did
that, I had to go outside and water the plants so they would
survive while I was gone.
When I was out on the sidewalk, I was checking where
cars were parking because nobody was supposed to park right
in front of the doors to the building. There was a very wide
access sidewalk - large enough for a bus to park there. The
trees and plants were on the sides of that access spot. Cars
could stop and discharge passengers there, but no one could
park there.
I looked in both directions to check where the plants
were, then I set about to water each plant individually with
a very large plastic cup full of water.
I then went to the airport where I was meeting Todd
(Trevor St. John) (from One Life to Live TV show). I got
there first, and Todd's ex-wife Blair (actually Kassie
DePalva) was there standing in front of the doors to the
airport lobby. She asked me what I was doing there and I
told her I was meeting Todd and he was taking me to Hawaii.
She nodded and walked away - when I thought she would be
jealous that he was taking me somewhere. He was actually
taking me farther than that - like Japan and other places..
Then I saw Todd coming across the parking lot towards
me. He was dressed in a bright blue suit jacket - that was
so bright, it was almost irridescent - it was so outstanding
and out of place next to other people, that's all I could
see. It really felt uncomfortable.
After he arrived, I was looking at the itinerary of
what Todd was going to be doing on this trip. There were
many items on this page and I was bringing them all together
in one paragraph because he was going to be doing all these
things at the same time. So the page had the name Todd on it
numerous times (over 20)
I can't remember what any of the things were that he
was going to do, but when Todd does things, he does them -
big - and there are always people upset, angry, and he
always regrets getting caught doing them and everyone is
'always' angry about what he does.
Report: Iran mulls 'pre-emptive attack' against Israel;
commander warns of 'World War III'
By NBC News wire services
Updated at 4:46 a.m. ET:
Iran could launch a pre-emptive strike on
Israel if it was sure the Jewish state were
preparing to attack it, a senior commander
of its elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted
as saying on Sunday.
Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a brigadier general
in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,
made the comments to Iran's state-run Arabic
language Al-Alam television, according to a
report on the network's website.
"Iran will not start any war but it could
launch a pre-emptive attack if it was sure
that the enemies are putting the final
touches to attack it," Al-Alam said,
paraphrasing the military commander.
Hajizadeh, who heads the Guard's
aerospace division, said any attack on
Iranian soil could
could trigger "World War III."
"We cannot imagine the Zionist regime
starting a war without America's support.
Therefore, in case of a war, we will get
into a war with both of them and we will
certainly get into a conflict with American
bases," he said. "In that case,
unpredictable and unmanageable things would
happen and it could turn into a World War
III."
'Bases are equal to U.S. soil' U.S. facilities in Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan
would be targeted, he added.
"There will be no neutral country in the region,"
Hajizadeh was quoted as saying. "To us, these bases are
equal to U.S. soil."
The U.S. Fifth fleet is based in Bahrain and the U.S. has
a heavy military presence in Afghanistan.
U.S. officials reportedly suspect Iran is behind a
string of recent cyber attacks that were aimed at major
U.S. banks. Jim Finkle of Reuters has more on the story.
The Iranian warning appears an attempt to reinforce the
potential wider consequences of an attack by Israel. The
message is not only intended for Washington, but to its Gulf
Arab allies that are fearful of a regional conflict that
could disrupt oil shipment and cripple business hubs in
places such as Dubai and Qatar's capital Doha.
It also comes during a major show of naval power in the
Gulf by U.S.-led forces taking part in military exercises,
including mine-sweeping drills. The U.S. Navy claims the
maneuvers are not directly aimed at Iran, but the West and
its regional allies have made clear they would react against
attempts by Tehran to carry out threats to try to close
critical Gulf oil shipping lanes in retaliation for tighter
sanctions.
Friction mounts as Israel asks that U.S. give Iran an
ultimatum; a tricky position for Obama, whose foreign
policy has been lauded. NBC's Andrea Mitchell and CNBC's
John Harwood report.
Despite Israeli hints of a military strike, Iran's
military commanders believe Israel is unlikely to take
unilateral action against Iran. The Guard's top commander,
Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, said last week that Iran believes
the United States won't attack Iran because its military
bases in the Middle East are within the range of Iran's
missiles.
Iran has also warned that oil shipments through the
strategic Strait of Hormuz will be in jeopardy if a war
breaks out between Iran and the United States. Iranian
officials have previously threatened to close the waterway,
the route for a fifth of the world's oil, if there is war.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discusses the
"danger of not acting" in the era of a potentially
nuclear-armed Iran
Israel believes that any attack on Iran would likely
unleash retaliation in the form of Iranian missiles as well
as rocket attacks by Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas on
its northern and southern borders.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made increasing
hints that Israel could strike Iran's nuclear sites and has
criticized President Barack Obama's position that sanctions
and diplomacy should be given more time to stop Iran getting
the atomic bomb.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice
explains the extent of Iran's nuclear capabilities,
including the U.S. plan for response to such an
incident.
Tehran denied it is seeking weapons capability and says
its atomic work is peaceful, aimed at generating
electricity.
In order to make the existing
state of war and martial law so
inconvenient and unprofitable to the
people that they will earnestly desire
and work for the re-establishment of
peace and civil government, and for the
purpose of throwing the burden of the
war upon the disloyal element, pursuant
to provisions of paragraphs 21, 37, 76,
and 156,
General Orders No. 100, the
following expedients may, in the
discretion of subdistrict and station
commanders, be adopted throughout
Batangas and
Laguna:
First. Until the re-establishment
of civil government and the making of
provisions thereby for the repair of
roads and performance of other public
work, the old Spanish law requiring
either fifteen days' free labor or three
pesos tax in lieu thereof may be
enforced, and road work be begun as soon
as it is practicable or safe to do so.
With this purpose in view, lists
will be immediately prepared of all the
principales, who will have the privilege
of either paying three pesos or working;
but all other poor people, able-bodied
males, will be required to work in turn.
The purpose of the preceding
telegraphic circulars of instruction has
been to place the burden of the war on
the disloyal, and to so discipline the
inhabitants that they will become
anxious to aid and assist the government
in putting an end to the insurrection
and in securing the re-establishment of
civil government. Their provisions are
based upon the assumption that, with
very few exceptions, practically the
entire population has been hostile to us
at heart. In order to combat such a
population, it is necessary to make the
state of war as insupportable as
possible; and there is no more
efficacious way of accomplishing this
than by keeping the minds of the people
in such a state of anxiety and
apprehension that living under such
conditions will soon become unbearable.
Little should be said. The less
said the better. The making of threats
which cannot be carried out should
especially be carefully guarded against.
Let acts, not words, convey intentions.
The more an officer does and the less he
says about what he is going to do, the
more apprehensive and anxious will
become those who are guilty and who wait
for what is next to happen. When it
becomes necessary to give warning or
public instructions, do it
dispassionately, and not in a
threatening way.
Though it is intended and desired
that the policy to be enforced shall be
as rigid and relentless as it possibly
can be until the people have come to
their senses and completely turned
against the insurgents, the brigade
commander relies upon the sense of duty
of every officer and non-commissioned
officer and the personal pride and
gentility of every enlisted man to
effectually preclude looting and other
abuses committed for personal advantage.
He feels certain that officers and men
who have so important a duty to perform,
and who are forced to adopt such radical
measures to accomplish it, do not wish
to reflect serious discredit upon their
motives by seeking or desiring any
personal advantage.
J. F. Bell, Brigadier-general Commanding.
In other words, the military
authorities took whole provinces of people
apparently pursuing their ordinary
avocations, and undertook by every form of
oppression -- burning their houses,
destroying their food, confining them within
certain zones, confiscating their property,
imprisoning them, or forcing them to work --
to make them active agents on our side in
this war of conquest.
What
General Bell actually did is shown by
his report made the day after Christmas:
I have become convinced that
within two months at the outside there
will be no more insurrection in this
brigade. We may not have secured all the
guns or caught all the insurgents by
that time, and the present insurrection
will end and the men and the guns will
be secured in time.... I am practically
sure they cannot remain here in
Batangas, Laguna, and a part of
Tayabas. The people are now
assembled in the towns, with all the
visible food supply except that cached
by insurgents in the mountains. For the
next six days all station commanders
will be employed hunting insurgents and
their hidden food supplies within their
respective jurisdictions. Population of
each town will be turned out, and all
transportation that can be found
impressed to bring into government
storehouses all food that is found, if
it be possible to transport it. If not,
it will be destroyed.
I am now assembling in the
neighborhood of twenty-five hundred men,
who will be used in columns of about
fifty men each. I expect to accompany
the command. Of course, no such strength
is necessary to cope with all the
insurgents in the Phillipine Islands,
but the country is indescribably rough
and badly cut up.... To the ravines and
mountains I take so large a command for
the purpose of thoroughly searching each
ravine, valley, and mountain-peak for
insurgents and for food, expecting to
destroy everything I find outside of
towns. All able-bodied men will be
killed or captured. Old men, women, and
children will be sent to towns. This
movement begins January 1, by which time
I hope to have nearly all the food
supply in the towns. If insurgents hide
their guns and come into the towns, it
will be to my advantage; for I shall put
such a pressure on town officials and
police that they will be compelled to
identify insurgents. If I catch these, I
shall get their guns in time. I expect
to first clean out the wide
Loboo Peninsula south of
Bantangas,
Tiasan, and San Juan de Boc Boc
road. I shall then move command to the
vicinity of
Lake Taal, and sweep the country
westward to the ocean and south of
Cavite, returning through
Lipa.
I shall scour and clean up the
Lipa Mountains. Swinging northward, the
country in the vicinity of
San Pablo,
Alaminos,
Tananan, and
Santo Tomas, will be scoured, ending
at
Mount Maguiling, which will then be
thoroughly searched and devastated. This
is said to be the home of
Malvar and his parents.
Swinging back to the right, the
same treatment will be given all the
country of which
Mount Cristobal and
Mount Banabao are the main peaks.
These two mountains,
Mount Maguiling, and the mountains
north-east of
Loboo are the main haunts of the
insurgents. After the 1st of January no
one will be permitted to move about
without a pass....
These people need a thrashing to
teach them some good common sense, and
they should have it for the good of all
concerned. Sixto Lopez is now interested
in peace because I have in jail all the
male members of his family found in my
jurisdiction, and have seized his houses
and palay and his steamer.
The following was issued after Major
Waller and others had been at work for
some time, as
General Smith took command October 10,
and Major
Waller's report of burning one hundred
and sixty-five villages was dated November
23:
[Circular No. 6.]
Headquarters Sixth Separate Brigade,
Tacloban, Leyte, P.I, Dec. 24,1901.
To All Station Commanders:
The brigade commander has become
thoroughly convinced from the great mass
of evidence at hand that the
insurrection for some time past and
still in force in the island of
Samar has been supported solely by
the people who live in the pueblos
ostensibly pursuing their peaceful
pursuits and enjoying American
protection, and that this is especially
true in regard to the "pudientes," or
wealthy class.
He is and for some time past has
been satisfied that the people
themselves, and especially this wealthy
and influential class, can stop this
insurrection at any time they make up
their minds to do so; that up to the
present time they do not want peace;
that they are working in every way and
to the utmost of their ability to
prevent peace. He is satisfied that this
class, while openly talking peace, is
doing so simply to gain the confidence
of our officers and soldiers, only to
betray them to the insurrectos, or, in
short, that while ostensibly aiding the
Americans, they are in reality secretly
doing everything in their power to
support and maintain this insurrection.
Under such conditions there can
be but one course to pursue, which is to
adopt the policy that will create in the
minds of all the people a burning desire
for the war to cease, -- a desire or
longing so intense, so personal
especially to every individual of the
class mentioned, and so real that it
will impel them to devote themselves in
earnest to bringing about a state of
real peace, that will impel them to join
hands with the Americans in the
accomplishment of this end.
The policy to be pursued in this
brigade, from this time on, will be to
wage war in the sharpest and most
decisive manner possible. This policy
will apply to the island of
Samar and such other portions of the
brigade to which it may become necessary
to apply it, even though such territory
is supposedly peaceful or is under civil
government.
In waging this warfare, officers
of this brigade are directed and
expected to co-operate to their utmost,
so as to terminate this war as soon as
practicable, since short severe wars are
the most humane in the end. No civilized
war, however civilized, can be carried
on on a humanitarian basis. In waging
this war, officers will be guided by the
provisions of General Orders, No. 100,
Adjutant-general's Office, 1863, which
order promulgates the instructions for
the government of the armies of the
United States in the field. (Copies of
this order will be furnished to the
troops of this brigade as soon as
practicable. In the mean time commanding
officers will personally see to it that
the younger and less experienced
officers of the command are instructed
in the provisions of this order,
wherever it is possible to do so.)
Commanding officers are earnestly
requested and expected to exercise,
without reference to these headquarters,
their own discretion in the adoption of
any and all measures of warfare coming
within the provisions of this general
order which will tend to accomplish the
desired results in the most direct way
or in the shortest possible space of
time. They will also encourage the
younger officers of their commands to
constantly look for, engage, harass, and
annoy the enemy in the field; and to
this end commanding officers will repose
a large amount of confidence in these
subordinate officers, and will permit to
them a large latitude of action and a
discretion similar to that herein
conferred upon the commanding officers
of stations by these headquarters.
In dealing with the natives of
all classes, officers will be guided by
the following principles:
First. Every native, whether in
arms or living in the pueblos or
barrios, will be regarded and treated as
an enemy until he has conclusively shown
that he is a friend. This he cannot do
by mere words or promises, nor by
imparting information which, while true,
is old or stale and of no value; nor can
it be done by aiding us in ways that do
no material harm to the insurgents. In
short, the only manner in which the
native can demonstrate his loyalty is by
some positive act or acts that actually
and positively commit him to us, thereby
severing his relations with the
insurrectos and producing or tending to
produce distinctively unfriendly
relations with the insurgents.
Not only the ordinary natives,
but especially those of influence and
position in the pueblos, who manifestly
and openly cultivate friendly relations
with the Americans, will be regarded
with particular suspicion, since by the
announced policy of the insurgent
government their ablest and most stanch
friends or those who are capable of most
skillfully practising duplicity are
selected and directed to cultivate the
friendship of American officers, so as
to obtain their confidence, and to
secretly communicate to the insurgents
everything that the Americans do or
contemplate doing, particularly with
regard to the movement of troops. In a
word, friendship for the Americans on
the part of any native will be measured
directly and solely by his acts; and
neither sentiment nor social reasons of
any kind will be permitted to enter into
the determination of such friendship.
Second. It will be regarded as a
certainty that all officials of the
pueblos and barrios are likewise
officials of Lukban and his officers, or
at least that they are in actual touch
and sympathy with the insurgent leaders,
and that they are in secret aiding these
leaders with information, supplies,
etc., wherever possible. Officers will
not be misled by the fact that officials
of the pueblos pass ordinances inimical
to those in insurrection, or by any
action taken by them, either
collectively or individually. The public
acts of pueblo councils that are
favorable to the Americans are usually
negative by secret communication on the
part of the parties enacting them to
those in insurrection. Therefore, such
acts cannot be taken as a guide in
determining the friendship or lack of it
of these officials for the American
government.
Third. The taking of the oath of
allegiance by officials, presidentes,
vice-presidentes, consejeros,
principales, tenientes of barrios, or
other people of influence, does not
indicate that they or any of them have
espoused the American cause, since it is
a well-established fact that these
people frequently take the oath of
allegiance with the direct object and
intent of enabling them to be of greater
service to their real friends in the
field. In short, the loyalty of these
people is to be determined only by acts
which, when combined with their usual
course of conduct, irrevocably binds
them to the American cause.
Neutrality must not be tolerated
on the part of any native. The time has
now arrived when all natives in this
brigade, who are not openly for us must
be regarded as against us. In short, if
not an active friend, he is an open
enemy.
Fourth. The most dangerous class
with whom we have to deal is the wealthy
sympathizer and contributor. This class
comprises not only all those officials
and principales above mentioned, but all
those of importance who live in the
pueblos with their families. By far the
most important as well as the most
dangerous member of this class is the
native priest. He is most dangerous; and
he is successful because he is usually
the best informed, besides wielding an
immense influence with the people by
virtue of his position. He has much to
lose, in his opinion, and but little to
gain through American supremacy in these
island.
It is expected that officers will
exercise their best endeavors to
suppress and prevent aid being given by
the people of this class, especially by
the native priests. Wherever there is
evidence of this assistance, or where
there is a strong suspicion that they
are thus secretly aiding the enemies of
our government, they will be confined
and held. The profession of the priest
will not prevent his arrest or
proceedings against him. If the evidence
is sufficient, they will be tried by the
proper court. If there is not sufficient
evidence to convict, they will be
arrested and confined as a military
necessity, and held as prisoners of war
until released by orders from these
headquarters.
It will be borne in mind that in
these islands, as a rule, it is next to
impossible to secure evidence against
men of influence, and especially against
the native priests, so long as they are
at large. On the other hand, after they
are arrested and confined, it is usually
quite easy to secure abundant evidence
against them. Officers in command of
stations will not hesitate, therefore,
to arrest and detain individuals whom
they have good reasons to suspect are
aiding the insurrection, even when
positive evidence is lacking....
Others of his orders are counterparts
of those issued by
General Bell, the phraseology being the
same.
Here, then, were several great
provinces placed under the heel of two
military officers, who started by assuming
that the entire population was hostile, who
regarded the most friendly behavior as
especial evidence of hostility, who imparted
their suspicions to their subordinates,
urged them to act without consulting
headquarters, and then began a campaign of
reconcentration, devastation, and
extermination. The only evidence of
friendship that was to be accepted
substantially was pointing out guns or
insurgents, and the natives were to be
subject to what
General Bell calls once an
"unsupportable" and once "intolerable"
pressure.
Evidence thus obtained must be
unreliable, as it always has been in every
age and every country; and
General Bell himself furnishes the proof
in the following despatch:
Information reaching these
headquarters indicates that the hardship
and pressure which has been placed upon
the people by the campaign has caused
them, in seeking revenge or means of
self-defence, to resort to their
well-known expedient of false
denunciation. Inasmuch as this custom is
both a pernicious nuisance and might
become a serious impediment to the
success of military operations,
commanding officers in the provinces of
Batangas and
Laguna will promptly bring to trial
by provost court, for conduct
prejudicial to good order and military
operations, any person who makes a false
denunciation, whenever it can be
established to the satisfaction of the
commanding officer that said false
denunciation has been knowingly and
viciously made for purposes of revenge,
of self-defence, of clouding the real
issue, of throwing discredit upon the
transactions, motives, or testimony of
material witnesses, or for any other
purpose.
Inasmuch, however, as it is not
intended to prevent or discourage the
making of legitimate complaints,
commanding officers will take great
pains to investigate carefully and bring
no one to trial until it has been
clearly ascertained that they have made
false denunciations knowingly and
purposely, with vicious intent.
Any kind of defiance of the
government or disloyal manifestations
against measures adopted by it to put an
end to insurrection, in this brigade,
will be suppressed at once. These people
must be taught the necessity for
submission to the legally constituted
authority, and this can be properly done
in one way only, -- by firm and
relentless repressive action.
J. F. Bell, Brigadier-general
Commanding.
Who were the men who as commanding
officers, or provost courts, held absolute
sway over thousands of men? They were
various subordinate officers, without
judicial experience, unfamiliar with the
language of the witnesses, and with every
passion and prejudice inflamed against the
people whom they were set to govern or try
by such orders from their superiors as have
been quoted.
it should be the earnest and
paramount aim of the military
administration to win the confidence,
respect, and affection of the
inhabitants of the Philippines by
assuring them in every possible way that
full measure of individual rights which
is the heritage of free peoples.
We have here concentration,
devastation, the destruction of food and
dwellings wherever found outside the
"protected zones," killing, and every
feature of the most barbarous war.
How such orders appear in the
execution may be gathered from the following
letter written to Senator Hoar by Clarence
Clowe, of Seattle, on June 10, 1900, at a
time when we were supposed to be pursuing
"the magnanimous and benevolent policy" of
which
General Bell speaks in his order of
December 13, 1902. It was about sixteen
months after hostilities began.
At any time I am liable to be
called upon to go out and bind and gag
helpless prisoners, to strike them in
the face, to knock them down when so
bound, to bear them away from wife and
children, at their very door, who are
shrieking pitifully the while, or
kneeling and kissing the hands of our
officers, imploring mercy from those who
seem not to know what it is, and then,
with a crowd of soldiers, hold our
helpless victim head downward in a tub
of water in his own yard, or bind him
hand and foot, attaching ropes to head
and feet, and then lowering him into the
depths of a well of water till life is
well-nigh choked out, and the bitterness
of a death is tasted, and our poor,
gasping victims ask us for the poor boon
of being finished off, in mercy to
themselves.
All these things have been done
at one time or another by our men,
generally in cases of trying to obtain
information as to the location of arms
and ammunition.
Nor can it be said that there is
any general repulsion on the part of the
enlisted men to taking part in these
doings. I regret to have to say that, on
the contrary, the majority of soldiers
take a keen delight in them, and rush
with joy to the making of this latest
development of a Roman holiday.
Yet
Secretary Root approved all this. In his
letter of May 7, 1902, to the president of
the Senate, he says that the orders of
General Bell of December 8, December 9,
and December 13, were received by the
department on January 17, 1902.
He says that these orders were "based
upon," and were in strict conformity both
with the letter and spirit of these
instructions,that
the War Department saw no reason to doubt
that the policy embodied in the
above-mentioned orders was at once the most
effective and the most humane which could
possibly be followed; and so, indeed, it has
proved, since, as he says, the guerilla
warfare in
Batangas and
Laguna and the adjacent regions has been
ended, the authority of the United States
has been asserted and acquiesced in, and the
people who had been collected and protected
in the camps of concentration have been
permitted to return to their homes and
resume their customary pursuits in peace.
Surely, an amazing sentence, when we
remember that outside the camps their homes
had been burned, and their food and other
property destroyed or carried away in great
part, if not wholly. Can such "devastation"
as
General Bell describes in his letter to
General Wheaton be carried out and any
home worth having be left? Literally,
history repeats itself; and the American
Secretary of War "makes a solitude, and
calls it peace."
The War Department has not
disapproved or interfered in any way
with the orders giving effect to this
policy; but has aided in their
enforcement by directing an increase of
food supply to the Philippines for the
purpose of caring for the natives in the
concentration camps.
THE
FACTS-GUNDERSON PRISONER BOXCARS WITH
SHACKLES-A REPORT
Here is
a summary of the previous information
circulating about Gunderson’s PRISONER
BOXCARS WITH SHACKLES from previous
reports circulating all over the nation
on this subject, which I have written.
BRENT GUNDERSON is challenging my
information. CAN YOU PROVE HIM WRONG???
Many people have raised skeptical
questions about reports of prisoner
BOXCARS AND SHACKLES being sighted
across America. Some people think that
they are only reported originally
through Phil Schnieder in a Patriot
interview. Recently, someone erroneously
reported that MY information on them
originated from Phil Schnieder.
WRONG!
My research and documentation on the
boxcars and shackles goes far beyond
Phil´s interview. Long before I heard of
him, I had eyewitness information on
these boxcars. A van full of
eyewitnesses, missionaries traveling
across America to evangelize and pray,
stumbled across these boxcars in
Montana, near Columbia Falls in Glacier.
They described boxcars, in this case
painted black, with shackles welded into
them and a modern guillotine at the head
of each boxcar inside. As they were
photographing mountain scenery, they
decided to follow railroad tracks into
the wilderness so as to not get lost.
This is how they came upon these boxcars
with shackles. I later received a report
from Lee Harrington of Valier, MT, who
was a professional metal worker. He told
me how in Glascow, MT, summer youth
workers were employed to weld shackles
into boxcars in that operation. They
were then shipped west to Glacier and
stored on remote sidetracks. Passing
through the Blackfoot Indian Reservation
in Cutbank, a local Blackfoot Indian,
George Bullcalf, spotted these strange
boxcars. When I interviewed local
Patriots in Columbia Falls, they
confirmed that hunters often stumbled
upon such boxcars on remote train spurs
in that wilderness region.
I THEN
TRAVELED TO PORTLAND OREGON, and
lectured in the home of an actual
employee of GUNDERSON STEEL FABRICATION.
The wife of this high level executive
called this meeting personally to make a
public admission. In the meeting were
OTHER GUNDERSON EMPLOYEES who had
witnessed the prisoner boxcars in the
higher than normal, three floor/three
tier prisoner boxcars.
She
admitted that her husband finally told
her that GUNDERSON WAS UNDER SECRET
CONTRACT FROM THE US GOVERNMENT TO
PRODUCE THESE PRISONER BOXCARS. She also
admitted that Gunderson had a satellite
factory for a boxcars with shackles
operation in Texas.
I called
Col. Jim Ammerman in Texas, famous
military Patriot-lecturer against
martial law, and told him about this. He
replied, “A friend of mine who is a
metal welder called me recently, and
said he had gone to apply for a job in
offered in Texas for welding. When he
was told that it involved WELDING
SHACKLES INTO BOXCARS, he declined the
job!”
I later
interviewed Russian immigrants in this
area who admitted that some of their
people were working at Gunderson, and
one young man, Sasha, admitted working
on prisoner boxcars and described them
completely to his Russian Christian
friends there. THE RUSSIAN COMMMUNITY
NOW KNOWS ABOUT THEM AND IS VERY AFRAID
OF THE IMPLICATIONS!!! Many Russians
still work there.
Another
source, WATCHDOG, a retired military vet
with a watchdog group, described yet
another boxcar with shackles operation
in New Hampshire, with three tiered
boxcars fitted with shackles.
Metal
worker Lee Harrington also described
20,000 CHINESE prisoner boxcars with
shackles and modern guillotines, in the
form of 40 foot railroad containers,
coming into America via the west coast.
They were ordered by the American
government through a Senator who visited
China and ordered these items. Workers
unloading them became suspicious and
began to investigate and discovered
these horrors from China. Such 40 foot
cargo containers from China are now
piled up along the West Coast,
especially around Long Beach Naval
Shipyard, turned over the Chinese. I
receive constant reports across America
regarding these types of prisoner
boxcars from former radio listeners and
Patriots across America…and Canada.
Recently, a former high level satanist
from the mountains of North Carolina,
now a Christian and receiving
discipleship, admitted that boxcars with
shackles were indeed in the mountains of
NC and waiting for the hour of martial
law. (Asheville, NC) He warned that many
Patriots and Christians arrested and
secured into these prisoner boxcars
under martial law will never even make
it to the death camps..that many will be
tortured and sacrificed once restrained
in these prisoner boxcars.
The informant mentions the "Red
list", of which he and 50000 others are
included , along with the "Blue"
and "Green"
lists. "Those on the
Red well be taken ... www.greatdreams.com/redline.htm
The Constitutional Topics pages at the
USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into
topics than can be provided on the
Glossary Page or in the
FAQ
pages. This Topic Page concerns Martial Law. Martial law
is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but the
suspension of habeas corpus is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 9, and the activation of the militia
in time of rebellion or invasion is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 8. The Topic Page for
Military Justice may also be of interest.
The sources for this topic are, primarily, The
Living U.S. Constitution by Saul Padover and Jacob
Landynski (Meridian, 1995); Constitutional Law: Cases and
Commentary by Daniel Hall (Lawyer's Cooperative
Publishing, 1997); and ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2.
Note: please note the spelling of "martial law." A
common mistake is to spell it as "marshal law" or "marshall
law." A "marshal" is a law enforcement officer of, for
example, the U.S. Marshal Service. There is such a thing as
a marshal, but no such thing as marshal law.
In strict dictionary terms,
martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the
imposition of military authority. When we say a region or
country is "under martial law," we mean to say that the
military is in control of the area, that it acts as the
police, as the courts, as the legislature. The degree of
control might vary - a nation may have a civilian
legislature but have the courts administered by the
military. Or the legislature and courts may operate under
civilian control with a military ruler. In each case,
martial law is in effect, even if it is not called "martial
law."
Martial law should not be confused with
military justice. In the United States, for example,
each branch of the military has its own judicial structures
in place. Members of the service are under the control of
military law, and in some cases civilians working for or
with the military may be subject to military law. But this
is the normal course of business in the military. Martial
law is the exception to the rule. In the United States, the
military courts were created by the Congress, and cases can
be appealed out of the military system to the Supreme Court
in many cases. In addition, a civilian court can petition
the military for habeas corpus.
Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in
Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require
it."
Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may
not be held by the government without a valid reason for
being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court
upon a government agency (such as a police force or the
military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the
individual to the court, and to convince the court that the
person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas
corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge.
Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial
law.
Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is
often argued that only Congress can declare martial law,
because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the
writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the
military, and it has been argued that the President can take
it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times,
Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting
martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the
declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the
declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of
martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the
Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be
able to resolve.
In the United States, there is precedent for martial
law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law
of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and
often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared
martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us
with most of the rules for martial law that we would use
today, should the need arise.
On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed
Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act
allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout
the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on
"prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the
enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft
dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in
ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court
ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of
suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.
In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the
United States spoke to the question of "what is martial
law?" "Martial law," it was argued, "is the will of the
commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical
military department, expressed in time of war within the
limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands
and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders
of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." In other
words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the
region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was
argued, "The officer executing martial law is at the same
time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme
executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can
define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed,
and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and
his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender."
In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is
named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer.
Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a
military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan
was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by
hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the
Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest,
trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the
Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military
commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish
[Milligan]?"
Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what
is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every
guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the
reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great
Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil
liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together;
the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one
or the other must perish."
Did this mean that martial law could never be
implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare
martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil
authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only
constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign
invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and
it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to
law, then, on the theatre of active military operations,
where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a
substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to
preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power
is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial
rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity
creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this
government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it
is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist
where the courts are open, and in the proper and
unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also
confined to the locality of actual war."
Through out United States history are several examples
of the imposition of martial law, aside from that during the
Civil War.
During the war of 1812, General Andrew Jackson imposed
martial law within his encampment at New Orleans, which he
had recently liberated. Martial law was also imposed in a
four mile radius around the camp. When word came of the end
of the war, Jackson maintained martial law, contending that
he had not gotten official word of the peace. A judge
demanded habeas corpus for a man arrested for sedition.
Rather than comply with the writ, Jackson had the judge
arrested. After the civil authority was restored, the judge
fined Jackson $1000, which he paid, and for which the
Congress later reimbursed Jackson.
In 1892, at Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, rebellious mine
workers blew up a mill and shot at strike-breaking workers.
The explosion leveled a four-story building and killed one
person. Mine owners asked the governor to declare martial
law, which he did. At the same time, a request was made for
federal troops to back guardsmen. Over 600 people were
arrested. The list was whittled down to two dozen ring
leaders who were tried in civil court. While in prison, the
mine workers formed a new union, the Western Federation of
Miners.
In 1914, imposition of martial law climaxed the
so-called Coal Field Wars in Colorado. Dating back decades,
the conflicts came to a head in Ludlow in 1913. The Colorado
National Guard was called in to quell the strikers. For a
time, the peace was kept, but it is reported that the
make-up of the Guard stationed at the mines began to shift
from impartial normal troops to companies of loyal mine
guards. Clashes increased and the proclamation of martial
law was made by the governor. President Wilson sent in
federal troops, eventually ending the violence.
In 1934, California Governor Frank Merriam placed the
docks of San Francisco under martial law, citing "riots and
tumult" resulting from a dock worker's strike. The Governor
threatened to place the entire city under martial law. The
National Guard was called in to open the docks, and a
city-wide institution of martial law was averted when goods
began to flow. The guardsmen were empowered to make arrests
and to then try detainees or turn them over to the civil
courts.
Martial law and San Francisco were no strangers -
following the earthquake of 1906, the troops stationed in
the Presidio were pressed into service. Guards were posted
throughout the city, and all dynamite was confiscated. The
dynamite was used to destroy buildings in the path of fires,
to prevent the fires from spreading. Troops were ordered to
shoot looters. Though there was never an official
declaration of martial law, the event is often cited as
such. However, at all times it appears the troops took their
orders indirectly from the civil authority.
Though not a state at the time, Hawaii was placed
under martial law in 1941, following the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor. Many of the residents of Hawaii were, and are,
of Asian descent, and the loyalty of these people was called
into question. After the war, the federal judge for the
islands condemned the conduct of martial law, saying, "Gov.
Poindexter declared lawfully martial law but the Army went
beyond the governor and set up that which was lawful only in
conquered enemy territory namely, military government which
is not bound by the Constitution. And they ... threw the
Constitution into the discard and set up a military
dictatorship."
On 8/26/2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New
Orleans was placed under martial law after widespread
flooding rendered civil authority ineffective. The state of
Louisiana does not have an actual legal construct called
"martial law," but instead something quite like it: a state
of public health emergency. The state of emergency allowed
the governor can suspend laws, order evacuations, and limit
the sales of items such as alcohol and firearms. The
governor's order limited the state of emergency, to end on
9/25/2005, "unless terminated sooner."
There have been many instances of the use of the
military within the borders of the United States, such as
during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the
civil rights crises, but these acts are not tantamount to a
declaration of martial law. The distinction must be made as
clear as that between martial law and military justice:
deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the
civil courts cannot function, and that is one of the keys,
as the Supreme Court noted, to martial law.
Martial law is the system of rules that
takes effect when the military takes control
of the normal administration of justice.
Martial law is sometimes imposed
during
wars or
occupations in the absence of any other
civil government. Examples of this form of
military rule include Germany and Japan
after World War II or the American South
during the early stages of
Reconstruction. In addition it is used
by governments to enforce their rule, for
example after a
coup d'état (Thailand
2006), when threatened by popular
protests (Tiananmen
Square protests of 1989), or to crack
down on the opposition (Poland
1981). Martial law can also be declared
in cases of major
natural disasters; however most
countries use a different legal construct,
such as a "state
of emergency".
In many countries martial law imposes
particular rules, one of which is
curfew. Often, under this system, the
administration of
justice is left to a military
tribunal, called a
court-martial. The suspension of the
writ of
habeas corpus is likely to occur.
In Egypt, a
State of Emergency has been imposed
almost continuously since 1967 A.D. Due to
the assassination of
President Anwar el-Sadat in 1981,
martial law was declared. Egypt has been
under martial law ever since - the
Parliament has renewed the emergency laws
every three years since they were imposed.
The legislation was last extended in 2003
and was due to expire at the end of May
2006; plans were in place to replace them
with new anti-terrorism laws but after the
Dahab bombings in April martial law was
renewed for another two years.
[1]
[2]
Martial law allows the government to
detain anyone deemed to be threatening state
security for renewable 45-day periods
without court orders and also give military
courts the power to try civilians.
Public demonstrations are banned under
the legislation.
India
Martial law in India is different from
rest of the world. According to the Indian
Constitution, during peacetime, governmental
and the people's interests are under the
control of the Prime Minister, Parliament,
and the Supreme Court, but all armed forces
(except police, which are under the control
of the Home Ministry and the respective
state governments) are under the direct
control of the Department of Defense and the
President (who also controls the national
guard and paramilitary forces). In case of a
Emergency being declared in accordance with
article 352 of the Indian Constitution
[3] , all armed forces, reserve forces,
and paramilitary forces, along with the
Department of Defence, come under the strict
orders of the President; while police, home
ministry, law department, and government
comes under strict control of the
Prime Minister (without any intervention
by Parliament and the Supreme Court). In
such a crisis, solving an issue/problem,
stabilizing the nation, and defense are
considered higher priorities than the
people's interest. In this situation, the
Fundamental Rights may be suspended as
well though in recent years the Supreme
Court has ruled that some of the rights may
never be suspended.
In case of an environmental crisis or
a limited terrorist attack or limited war,
the Indian government declares states of
alert in the vicinity of the area in which
the emergency relief forces of the Indian
Armed Forces, the Home Guard, and the police
are coordinated by the Government of India.
However Fundamental Rights are NOT
suspended.
The British Indian Colonial Government
declared martial law many times in order to
suppress the Indian freedom movement.
April 13 1919 - After General
Reginald Dyer
fires upon a crowd of protesters in
Amritsar,Punjab, where 379(official)
,>1000(unofficial and subsequent
investigations) are killed, Martial Law
is declared throughout Punjab.
During the various points of the
freedom struggle like the
Non-Cooperation Movement and the Quit
India Movement in 1942
So far, Indian government declared
State of Emergency according to article 352
only once after independence:-
1975 -
Indira Gandhi declared a state of
emergency between 25 June 1975–21 March
1977.[2]
There have been numerous 'states of
alert' being declared in the history of
Independent India
1984 December - Gas leak at
Bhopal Gas tragedy. Thousands are
killed immediately, many more
subsequently die or are left disabled.
1999 October - Cyclone devastates
eastern state of Orissa, leaving at
least 10,000 dead.
2001 January - Massive
earthquakes hit the western state of
Gujarat, leaving at least 30,000 dead.
2004 December - Thousands are
killed when tidal waves, caused by a
powerful undersea earthquake off the
Indonesian coast, devastate coastal
communities in the south and in the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
2005 July - More than 1,000
people are killed in floods and
landslides caused by monsoon rains in
Mumbai (Bombay) and Maharashtra region.
2005 8 October - An earthquake,
with its epicenter in
Pakistani-administered Kashmir, kills
more than 1,000 people in
Indian-administered Kashmir.
NOTE:- Indian government declares
state of emergency during any crisis that is
administered as terrorist activity.
2003 August - At least 50 people
are killed in two simultaneous bomb
blasts in Bombay. Also, bombs kill 62
people in Delhi.
2006 14 people are killed by bomb
blasts in the Hindu pilgrimage city of
Varanasi.
2006 May - Suspected Islamic
militants kill 35 Hindus in the worst
attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir
for several months.
2006 11 July - More than 180
people are killed in bomb attacks on
rush-hour trains in Mumbai.
Investigators blame Islamic militants
based in Pakistan.
2006 8 September - Explosions
outside a mosque in the western town of
Malegaon kill at least 31 people.
2007 18 February - 68 passengers,
most of them Pakistanis, are killed by
bomb blasts and a blaze on a train
traveling from New Delhi to the
Pakistani city of Lahore.
For further reading please browse
through BBC Archives in South Asia section,
relating to India.[3]
Ireland
Much of Ireland was declared under
martial law by the British authorities
during the
Irish War of Independence. Much of
Ireland was also under de facto martial law
during the
Irish Civil War
Israel
Military administrative government was
in effect from 1949 to 1966 over some
geographical areas of
Israel, which had large
Arab populations, primarily the
Negev,
Galilee, and the
Triangle. The residents of these areas
were subject to a number of controlling
measures that amounted to martial law.[4][5]
Permits from the military governor had to be
procured to travel more than a given
distance from their registered place of
residence and
curfew,
administrative detentions, and
expulsions were common.[4]
Though the military administration was
officially for geographical areas, and not
people, its restrictions were seldom
enforced on the Jewish residents of these
areas. In the 1950s, martial law ceased to
be in effect for those
Arab citizens living in
predominantly-Jewish cities, but remained in
place in all Arab localities within Israel
until 1966.[4]
During the
2006 Lebanon war, martial law was
declared by Defense Minister
Amir Peretz over the North of the
country. The
Israel Defense Forces were granted the
authority to issue instructions to
civilians, and close down offices, schools,
camps and factories in cities considered
under threat of attack, as well as to impose
curfews on cities in the North.[6]
Instructions of the Home Front Command are
obligatory under martial law, rather than
merely recommendatory.[6]
The order signed by Peretz was in effect for
48 hours.[6]
It was extended by the Cabinet and the
Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee over the war's duration.[citation
needed]
Pakistan
Martial law has been declared in
Pakistan three times, though two times
enforced under the name of "state of
emergency", by Musharraf, as constitution
was suspended. In the first instance
President
Iskander Mirza abrogated the
Constitution in 1958 and declared Martial
Law over the country. The second instance
was when General
Yahya Khan declared martial law in
March, 1969 after Mirza's successor, General
Ayub Khan handed over power to him. the
3rd by Gen Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Another
debatable instance was when
General Pervez Musharraf declared two
times in the country "State of Emergency"
once to topple Nawaz Sharif and other under
thr self-created grounds i.e. mounting
militant attacks and "interference by
members of the judiciary". See
2007 Pakistani state of emergency for
more information.
After several tumultuous years, which
witnessed the secession of
East Pakistan, politician
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took over in 1971 as
the first civilian martial law administrator
in recent history, imposing selective
martial law in areas hostile to his rule,
such as the country's largest province,
Balochistan. Following widespread
civil disorder, General
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Bhutto and
imposed martial law in its totality on July
5, 1977 in a bloodless
coup d'etat. Unstable areas were brought
under control through indirect
military action, such as Balochistan
under Martial Law Governor, General
Rahimuddin Khan. Civilian government
resumed in 1988 following General Zia's
death in an
aircraft crash.
On November 03, 2007, President
General
Pervez Musharraf declared the state
emergency in the country which is claimed to
be equivalent to the state of Martial Law as
the constitution of Pakistan of 1973, was
suspended, and the Chief Justices of the
Supreme Court were fired.
On November 12, 2007, President
General
Pervez Musharraf issued some amendments
in the Military Act, which gave the Armed
forces some additional powers.
Philippines
President
Jose P. Laurel of the wartime Second
Republic (puppet-government under Japan)
placed the Philippines under martial law in
1944 through Proclamation No. 29, dated
September 21. Martial law came into effect
on September 22, 1944 at 9am. Proclamation
No. 30 was issued the next day, declaring
the existence of a state of war between the
Philippines and the US and Great Britain.
This took effect on September 23, 1944 at
10am.
The
Philippines was under martial law again
from 1972 to 1981 under the authoritarian
rule of
Ferdinand Marcos. Martial law was
declared to suppress increasing civil strife
and the threat of communist takeover
following a series of bombings in Manila.
The declaration of martial law was initially
well-received by some segment of the people
but became unpopular as excesses and human
rights abuses by the military emerged.
Torture was used in extracting information
from their enemies. Proclamation No. 1081
(Proclaiming a State of Martial Law in the
Philippines) was signed on September 21,
1972 and came into force on September 22 -
interestingly enough exactly 28 years after
President
Jose P. Laurel's similar proclamations.
There were rumours that President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was planning to
impose martial law to put an end to military
coup plotters and general civilian
dissatisfaction and criticism of the
legitimacy of her presidency due to dubious
election results. Instead, however, a "State
of National Emergency" was imposed to crush
a coup plot and tackle protesters which
lasted from February 24, 2006 until March 3
of the same year.
Martial law was introduced in
Communist Poland on
December 13,
1981 by Generals
Czesław Kiszczak and
Wojciech Jaruzelski to prevent
democratic opposition from gaining
popularity and political power in the
country. Thousands of people linked to
democratic opposition, including
Lech Wałęsa, were arbitrary arrested and
detained. About 100 deaths are attributed to
the martial law, including 9 miners shot by
the police during the pacification of
striking
Wujek Coal Mine. The martial law was
lifted
July 22,
1983. Polish society is divided in
opinion on the necessity of introduction of
the martial law, which is viewed as a lesser
evil compared to alleged
Soviet military intervention. Generals'
legal trials are still in progress after 25
years from the events.
Switzerland
There are no provisions for martial
law as such in
Switzerland. Under the Army Law
of 1995
[4], the
Army can be called upon by
cantonal (state) authorities for
assistance (Assistenzdienst). This
regularly happens in the case of natural
disasters or special protection requirements
(e.g., for the
World Economic Forum in
Davos). This assistance generally
requires parliamentary authorization,
though, and takes place in the regular legal
framework and under the civilian leadership
of the cantonal authorities. On the other
hand, the federal authorities are authorized
to use the Army to enforce law and order
when the Cantons no longer can or want to do
so (Ordnungsdienst). This power
largely fell into disuse after
World War II. See
[5].
Republic of
China (Taiwan)
After the
Kuomintang (KMT) regime of the
Republic of China (ROC) retreated from
mainland China to
Taiwan, the distinction of having the
longest period of martial law in modern
history was imposed on Taiwan and the
other islands administered by the
Republic of China. In the aftermath of the
2-28 Incident of 1947, martial law was
declared in 1948, and the perceived need to
suppress Communist and pro-democracy
activities on the island meant that the
martial law was not lifted until 1987.
During the
Yugoslav Wars in 1991, it was declared
"State of Direct War Threat". Although
forces from whole
SFRY were included in this conflict,
martial law was never announced, but after
secession,
Croatia and
Bosnia and Herzegovina declared Martial
law. In
March 23,
1999, "State of Direct War Threat" was
declared in
Yugoslavia, following possibility of
NATO air-strikes. Day after, when
strikes had begun, Martial law has been
declared, and it had duration until
June 15, that year, although strikes
ended on
June 10, following
Kumanovo agreement.
The martial law concept in the U.S. is
closely tied with the right of
habeas corpus, which is in essence
the right to a hearing on lawful
imprisonment, or more broadly, the
supervision of law enforcement by the
judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas
corpus is often equated with martial law.
Article 1, Section 9 of the
U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege
of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion
or Invasion, the public Safety may require
it."
In
United States law, martial law is
limited by several court decisions that were
handed down between the
American Civil War and
World War II. In 1878,
Congress passed the
Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids
military involvement in domestic law
enforcement without congressional approval.
The
Military Commissions Act of 2006
possibly rescinds these limits by suspending
habeas corpus, but the law is not clear on
whether it applies to U.S. Citizens. Since,
USNORTHCOM
[6] has increased its direct involvement
with civilian administration.
Ex parte
Milligan
On September 15, 1863, President
Lincoln imposed
Congressionally-authorized martial law. The
authorizing act allowed the President to
suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire
United States. Lincoln imposed the
suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or
aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well
as on other classes of people, such as draft
dodgers. The President's proclamation was
challenged in
Ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The
Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's
imposition of martial law (by way of
suspension of habeas corpus) was
unconstitutional.
Despite the recent laws passed, a test
of the president's power to declare martial
law without the consent of Congress would
likely run afoul of the Constitution which
has exclusive power to suspend Habeas
Corpus.
The
National Guard is an exception, since
unless federalized, they are under the
control of state governors.
[7]. This was changed briefly: Public
Law 109-364, or the "John
Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007"
(H.R.5122), was signed by
President Bush on October 17, 2006, and
allowed the President to declare a "public
emergency" and station troops anywhere in
America and take control of state-based
National Guard units without the consent of
the governor or local authorities. Title V,
Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the
JWDAA of 2007 reads "The [military]
Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force]
concerned may order a member of a reserve
component under the Secretary's jurisdiction
to active duty...The training or duty
ordered to be performed...may
include...support of operations or missions
undertaken by the member's unit at the
request of the
President or
Secretary of Defense."
[7] The
President signed the Defense Authorization
Act of 2008 on January 13, 2008. However,
Section 1068 in the enacted 2008 defense
authorization bill (H.R. 4986: "National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008") repealed this section of PL 109-364.
[8]
Contrary to many media reports at the
time, martial law was not declared in
New Orleans in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, because no such term
exists in
Louisiana state law. However, a
State of Emergency was declared, which
does give unique powers to the state
government similar to those of martial law.
On the evening of
August 31,
2005, New Orleans Mayor
Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial
law" and said that officers didn't have to
observe
civil rights and
Miranda rights in stopping the looters.
[9] Federal
troops were a common sight in New Orleans
after Katrina. At one point, as many as
15,000 federal troops and National Guardsmen
patrolled the city. Additionally it has been
reported that armed contractors from
Blackwater USA assisted in policing the
city.[10]
The following guide will help you plan, prepare, and
get ready in the event that martial law threatens you safety
and well being. It is divided into two parts. The first part
describes the framework for martial law and the second part
the actions to take in preparing for the actual declaration
of martial law.
INTERESTING FACTS
Martial law is defined as: military rule or
authority imposed on a civilian population when the
civil authorities cannot maintain law and order, as in a
time of war or during an emergency.
Hitler turned Germany into a Nazi dictatorship
through executive orders.
Executive Order 10995: All communications media
are to be seized by the Federal Government. Radio, TV,
newspapers, CB, Ham, telephones, and the internet will
be under federal control. Hence, the First Amendment
will be suspended indefinitely.
Executive Order 10997: All electrical power,
fuels, and all minerals well be seized by the federal
government.
Executive Order 10998: All food resources, farms
and farm equipment will be seized by the government. You
will not be allowed to hoard food since this is
regulated.
Executive Order 10999: All modes of
transportation will go into government control. Any
vehicle can be seized.
Executive Order 11000: All civilians can be used
for work under federal supervision.
Executive Order 11490: Establishes presidential
control over all US citizens, businesses, and churches
in time of "emergency."
Executive Order 12919: Directs various Cabinet
officials to be constantly ready to take over virtually
all aspects of the US economy during a State of National
Emergency at the direction of the president.
Executive Order 13010: Directs FEMA to take
control over all government agencies in time of
emergency. FEMA is under control of executive branch of
the government.
Executive Order 12656: "ASSIGNMENT OF EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS RESPONSIBILITIES", "A national emergency is
any occurrence, including natural disaster, military
attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that
seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national
security of the United States. Policy for national
security emergency preparedness shall be established by
the President." This order includes federal takeover of
all local law enforcement agencies, wage and price
controls, prohibits you from moving assets in or out of
the United States, creates a draft, controls all travel
in and out of the United States, and much more.
Martial law can be declared due to natural
disasters, Y2k Crisis, Stock Market crash, no
electricity, riots, biological attack, .... anything
leading to the breakdown of law and order.
SURVIVING MARTIAL LAW
Prepare before any declaration of martial law by
becoming self reliant. You may become subject to a
bureaucratic system and be prepared to stay one step
ahead of it which is easy to do if you are prepared and
in a position to be self reliant. You may also face mob
rule, chaos, panic, or a complete breakdown in law and
order. Surival situations may be easier to handle in
rural areas than urban.
Avoid areas of marital law. Can be imposed due to
natural disasters or man caused events. Important to
have a retreat or place in a rural area away from
populated areas.
Create alliances with like minded neighbors or
community members that share your views. Team work and
numbers may help your situation.
Become transparent in the sense that you do not
draw attention to yourself or your family. For instance,
do not tell people that you are storing food just store
food. Be prepared to render assistance to neighbors if
need be. You never know when you will need them.
Remain calm! Do not panic.
Avoid areas of civil unrest if possible. If
caught in
civil unrest take appropriate action.
Get informed and stay informed. Understand
martial law can be a temporary crisis or an extended
one. In extreme cases the shape of a whole nation can
change.
Declaration of martial law means your rights are
suspended and it is government by decree. Your
constitutional rights may no longer apply. This could
mean a state of National Emergency.
People can be arrested and imprisoned
indefinitely without charges.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly can be
suspended, and censorship of the media imposed.
Gun ownership will also come under severe attack
during marital law. We could see house to house searches
by the military or National Guard looking for guns and
seizing any they find along with stored food.
Take a stand on issues and make a choice that
fits your beliefs and the situation. Do you believe as
Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death?"
Realize you may have some hard choices to make.
Understand you may have to sacrifice your principles on
trivial matters or take a hard stand. Always remember
that you may have to come back and fight another day.
Sen. Barack Obama calls on Americans to
serve their country in a new plan
"I want this to be a central cause of my
presidency," Obama says
Obama wants to expand AmeriCorps, double
the size of the Peace Corps
His proposal also calls on Americans to
serve in the armed forces
From Ed Hornick
CNN
Sen.
Barack Obama on
Wednesday unveiled a
plan to create volunteer
and service
opportunities to help
tackle some of the
nation's most pressing
issues, part of his
weeklong focus on
patriotism and national
service.
Sen.
Barack
Obama is
expected
to say
President
Bush
failed
to urge
Americans
to serve
their
nation
after
9/11.
"This
won't be a call issued
in one speech or one
program -- I want this
to be a central cause of
my presidency," Obama
said in a speech at the
University of Colorado
in Colorado Springs.
"We will
ask Americans to serve.
We will create new
opportunities for
Americans to serve. And
we will direct that
service to our most
pressing national
challenges."
He added,
"When you choose to
serve -- whether it's
your nation, your
community or simply your
neighborhood -- you are
connected to that
fundamental American
ideal that we want life,
liberty and the pursuit
of happiness not just
for ourselves, but for
all Americans. That's
why it's called the
American dream."
Obama
highlighted his time as
a community organizer on
Chicago's South Side and
his stint heading
Project Vote, a group
that helped register
150,000 new
African-American voters
in the Illinois city,
according to his
campaign.
"I wasn't
just helping other
people. Through service,
I found a community that
embraced me; citizenship
that was meaningful; the
direction I'd been
seeking. Through
service, I discovered
how my own improbable
story fit into the
larger story of
America," he said.
The
presumptive Democratic
presidential nominee
also touched on the
"spirit" of service
witnessed after the
September 11, 2001,
attacks and take aim at
the Bush
administration's failure
to capitalize on this
opportunity to call
Americans to service.
"We were
ready to step into the
strong current of
history and to answer a
new call for our
country. But the call
never came," he said.
Don't
Miss
Election Center
2008
"Instead
of a call to service, we
were asked to shop. ...
Instead of leadership
that called us to come
together, we got
patriotism defined as
the property of one
party and used as a
political wedge ... we
ended up going into a
war that should have
never been authorized
and should have never
been waged."
Obama
also pressed the need to
"ease the burden on our
troops, while meeting
the challenges of the
21st century" -- a plan
he hopes will increase
ground forces by 65,000
soldiers and 27,000
Marines.
According
to Obama's campaign, the
service plan will
include:
Expanding
AmeriCorps to 250,000
slots and doubling the
size of the Peace Corps;
Integrating
service-learning
programs into schools
and universities
Providing
new service
opportunities for
working Americans and
retirees;
Expanding
service initiatives that
"engage disadvantaged
young people and advance
their education";
Expanding
the capacity of
nonprofit groups to
innovate and expand
successful programs
across the country; and
Sen.
John McCain also has
touched on national
service with a call to
action on his campaign
Web site.
In a
section entitled "A
Cause Greater Than
Self," the presumptive
GOP nominee asks
Americans to donate
their time to relief
efforts -- including
helping out in the
flood-ravaged areas of
Iowa.
See more
on McCain's plan
There
is also a list of
suggested sites where
people can volunteer.
The
House passed a bill yesterday which includes
disturbing language indicating young people
will be forced to undertake mandatory
national service programs as fears about
President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian
national security force” intensify.
Under
section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,”
in subsection B6, the legislation states
that a commission will be set up to
investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and
reasonable mandatory service
requirement for all able young people could
be developed, and how such a requirement
could be implemented in a manner that would
strengthen the social fabric of the Nation
and overcome civic challenges by bringing
together people from diverse economic,
ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section
120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth
Engagement Zone Program” and states that
“service learning” will be “a mandatory
part of the curriculum in all of the
secondary schools served by the local
educational agency.”
“The
legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over
five years, would create 175,000 “new
service opportunities” under AmeriCorps,
bringing the number of participants in the
national volunteer program to 250,000. It
would also create additional “corps” to
expand the reach of volunteerism into new
sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps,
Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and
Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the
National Civilian Community Corps to focus
on additional areas like disaster relief and
energy conservation,”
reports Fox
News.
The Senate is also considering a
similar piece of legislation known as the
“Serve America
Act,” which also includes
language about “Youth Engagement Zones”.
Fears about Obama’s plans
to create involuntary
servitude were first stoked
in July 2008, when Obama
told a rally in Colorado
Springs, “We cannot continue
to rely on our military in
order to achieve the
national security objectives
we’ve set. We’ve got to have
a civilian national security
force that is just as
powerful, just as strong,
just as well funded.”
Despite denials that
Obama plans to institute a
mandatory program of
national service,
his original change.gov
website stated
that Americans would be
“required” to complete “50
hours of community service
in middle school and high
school and 100 hours of
community service in college
every year”. The text was
only later changed to state
that Americans would be
“encouraged” to undertake
such programs.
“The bill’s opponents —
and there are only a few in
Congress — say it could cram
ideology down the throats of
young “volunteers,” many of
whom could be forced into
service since the bill
creates a “Congressional
Commission on Civic
Service,” reports Fox.
“We contribute our time
and money under no
government coercion on a
scale the rest of the world
doesn’t emulate and probably
can’t imagine,” said Luke
Sheahan, contributing editor
for the Family Security
Foundation. “The idea that
government should order its
people to perform acts of
charity is contrary to the
idea of charity and it
removes the responsibility
for charity from the people
to the government,
destroying private
initiative.”
Lee Cary of the
conservative American
Thinker warns that Obama’s
agenda is to, “tap into the
already active volunteerism
of millions of Americans and
recruit them to become cogs
in a gigantic government
machine grinding out his
social re-engineering
agenda.”
CFR luminary Gary Hart
hit back at critics,
claiming in a Huffington
Post piece that, “Resistance
to expanded public service
programs can be expected
from the ideologically
sclerotic, those who occupy
the negative ground between
government as the problem
and government as our
enemy.”
The frightening prospect
of Obama’s mandatory
government servitude is
covered in-depth in Alex
Jones’ new documentary
blockbuster, The Obama
Deception.
Subscribe to prison
planet.tv now
to watch the film in
high-quality,
watch it for free here
or
buy the DVD,
make copies and spread the
word.
3-30-09 - DREAM - I was at a school, and my daughter
as a young woman and her friends came in to sign up for
Obama's mandatory volunteerism. I told them to look like
teachers, and they all stopped smiling and got serious faces
on them as they lined up for their duty.
Then George W. Bush came in to sign up. He had a
sardonic smile on his face. just like that.
Plenty of blogospheric blowback and some
applause for Jonah Goldberg's column today on
Barack Obama's national service proposal. First,
from
Goldberg's column:
There's a weird irony at work when
Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential
candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain
of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul
of the constitutional amendment that
abolished slavery.
For those who don't remember, the 13th
Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime ... shall exist within
the United States" ....
In
his speech on national service Wednesday at
the University of Colorado, Obama promised
that as president he would "set a goal for
all American middle and high school students
to perform 50 hours of service a year, and
for all college students to perform 100
hours of service a year."
He would see that these goals are met by,
among other things, attaching strings to
federal education dollars. If you don't make
the kids report for duty, he's essentially
telling schools and college kids, you'll
lose money you can't afford to lose. In
short, he'll make service compulsory by
merely compelling schools to make it
compulsory.
That is one “dumb” for each paragraph of
Jonah Goldberg’s Los Angeles Times
column today. For the record, we did not
expect it to be “good,” in the traditional
sense — we didn’t expect to read it at all!
But 18 paragraphs of unmitigated “dumb” has
a strangely magnetic appeal during this lazy
news season. So let’s check out Jonah’s
column, in which he argues that Obama’s plan
to offer educational aid as a reward for
national service is somehow both (a) welfare
and (b) slavery....
He adds, many dumb paragraphs later,
the following: “No, national service isn’t
slavery. But it contributes to a slave
mentality, at odds with American tradition.”
Since when is the “slave mentality” at odds
with the American tradition, past or
present?
More reaction to Goldberg's June
8 column after the jump.
There is one benefit to Goldberg’s
idiotic penchant for selling every point he
makes with the most offensively wrong
analogy possible - he’s about 75% of the way
towards Ann Coulter’s flameout into utter
irrelevance, and he’s only published one
book.
This accusation is because Barack
Obama proposes a program of national
service. And after building up a case for
national service as slavery that had never
been done with such care, what does he end
the piece with?
No, national service isn’t
slavery.
The main reason he has to admit this
is because he lapses awkwardly into a
discussion of how both John McCain and
George W. Bush support such programs,
meaning that we’re either headed for a
nation run by plantation bosses who want us
to fetch the national lemonade, or his
actual point - that national service offends
his ethic of receiving ideological welfare
for his hard work of being born and not
drinking industrial cleaner instead of
Gatorade. Really, dude, stop storing them
next to each other.
Outside the Beltway's Alex Knapp agrees with
Goldberg's larger point on national service but
faults him for "bad rhetoric." Excerpt:
Most of the outrage
directed at this column deals directly with
[Goldberg's first two paragraphs]. And,
frankly, I do think that Goldberg did employ
some bad rhetoric here. But it’s bad
rhetoric used to make an excellent point.
Namely, that there’s something un-American
about compulsory national service....
Now, Obama’s plan,
like most plans of this type, doesn’t
outright mandate that all students perform
national service. It merely makes such
service a condition for federal education
dollars. So in a technical sense, these
types of plans probably don’t run afoul of
the 13th Amendment. But they’re still pretty
appalling, and I think that Goldberg does
make an excellent point....
Look, if a kid wants
to spend 50 hours a year volunteering at a
soup kitchen or building a house for habitat
for humanity, then more power to him. If she
wants to spend that time playing video games
or basketball, or even *gasp!* holding down
a part-time job well, that’s her choice,
too. The point of America is that you got to
make the choice about what you want to do
with your life, not have some bureaucrat
decide for you.
Clunky prose aside, I
think that Goldberg was dead on in
condemning compulsory service. It’s an
antiquated, un-American notion that should
by no means make its way into federal law.
Maybe in the schools Jonah Goldberg
attended, they didn't require things like
homework, or attendance, or reading, or
math. It would explain a lot....
For the rest of us, though, there have
always been lots of compulsory things in
schools. If this counts as slavery, children
have been enslaved since compulsory
schooling began.
I can't wait for Jonah Goldberg's
sudden discovery that some children are told
-- told!! -- to clean their rooms.
I
wrote a column on national service for Reason
magazine a few months ago; read it
here.
These national "service" proposals certainly
violate the spirit of the 13th amendment,
regardless of how they might fare before,
say, the Supreme Court. I deeply resented
such programs when I was young, and I deeply
resent attempts to impose such requirements
on my children. I see a real threat of
backlash here. The young are finely-tuned to
recognize coercion when they see it (since
they perforce experience so much of it!).
The result could well be cynicism and a
resistance to true volunteerism in the
future. (On the other hand, it was
disingenuous of Mr. Goldberg to not even
mention that McCain and Bush have supported
similar proposals).
Once again, Jonah Goldberg gets it wrong.
Once again, he belittles and reduces a good
idea (no; a great idea) to a single-minded
oversimplification. National service likened
to slavery might seem a good fit in his mind
because hey, there's a certain historical
funhouse mirror feel to his oddly warped
symmetry: black man suggests slavery as a
national option. But Goldberg does this
country a grave disservice in performing
this intellectual sleight-of-hand.
Many of us have been asking for years
for our country to push for national
service. Compulsion never bothered Mr.
Goldberg and his ilk when it came to
national military service, so why would
building things cause him more concern than
killing people as a nationally required
service to one's country?
It all depends on how you look at it.
In my mind, it's a quid pro quo: the state
educates children until the age of 18, at
which point that citizen gives back 18
months of service in the area of his or her
choice. That could mean military or
Americorps type work as well as any number
of other national holes we need to fill:
delivery of food, supplies, and assistance
to the elderly or disabled; teaching and
classroom assisting; infrastructure upkeep;
park/beach/lake/trail maintenance; and a
hundred other needs that have gone unfilled
for too long.
With life expectancy lengthened, job
mobility and career switching a fact of
American life, and the hurried need to
finish college and begin a career by age 22
no longer operating, why not? (And, if a
student is not college-bound, I see no
reason why that youth couldn't start on the
volunteer path at age 16.) Imagine the tens
of thousands of disaffected and untethered
young people - especially children of recent
immigrants who have not yet found their
place in this system - participating in
their country's betterment, seeing their
labors as meaningful and worthwhile and
necessary to their full citizenship, and
forging friendships with other American
youth from different cultures, regions, and
backgrounds. I can see no better way to
connect young people to this democracy.
this jonah guy has a point: community
service is used as a punishment for crimes.
i don't want to do it; as an attorney, i
notice that people generally don't want to
do jury duty either. institute compulsory
service, and suddenly people will get hard
to count . . . .
this jonah guy has a point: community
service is used as a punishment for crimes.
i don't want to do it; as an attorney, i
notice that people generally don't want to
do jury duty either. institute compulsory
service, and suddenly people will get hard
to count . . . .
How
dare anyone tell us Americans what to do.
(Don't they know it's our job to tell others
what to do?) We Americans carry around this
loopy idea that if anyone requires anything
of us, we are somehow being enslaved. Was
the World War II draft enslavement? No,
because war is always a good excuse. But
developing responsible citizens who become
engaged with their nation's well-being
(without being forced to shoot people who
happen to come from a different country) is
slavery. In California, high school students
are required to do 60 hours of community
service to graduate. Does that make them
slaves? No, it makes them better citizens.
Does anyone else suggest that many of the
same people who are howling about "slavery"
here are also anxious to keep an automatic
weapon at home for "safety"?
National service is not slavery but
MANDATORY National Service is a form of
slavery. One must chose what to do with
his/her life and have choices. Bring back
the draft if you want mandatory. This really
teaches discipline and takes the arrogance
and big egos away from the young. Too back
Obama did not serve his country in the
military. Would have taken a lot of that hot
air out of him.
Neocon Jonathan Goldberg has long history
race of baiting. It's an obsession for him.
You have to have certain mental bent
to equate
Barack Obama call for volunteerism with
slavery.
Goldberg is an embarassment to Jews,
including the owner of the L.A. Times. The
Times needs to sever there relationship with
Goldberg immediately
In an attempt to belittle Barack Obama
and slavery Goldberg belittled himself. It
is time for him to begone.
Using Goldberg's reasoning anyone who
receieves college assitance for attending
the mititary academies, ROTC or serving in
the military is a slave. Goldberg didn't say
that because his focus once again is on skin
color.
To
the Los Angeles Time Editorial Board and Mr.
Jonah Goldberg:
Editorials and opinion pieces in many
national newspapers are poorly researched
and exhibit suspect logic, but Jonah
Goldberg’s July 8th piece on national
service (Forced Servitude in America?)
reaches for the pantheon of mediocrity. Mr.
Goldberg’s attempt to equate national
service initiatives such as Americorps to
slavery, smacks of a middle school student’s
attempt to grab his audience’s attention
through shock. What follows is an opinion
piece that is poorly researched and
misrepresents the facts
Mr. Goldberg’s first major misrepresentation
comes in the proclamation that Sen. Obama
wants to make national service compulsory.
Mr. Goldberg writes, “If you don't make the
kids report for duty, he's [Obama]
essentially telling schools and college
kids, you'll lose money you can't afford to
lose. In short, he'll make service
compulsory by merely compelling schools to
make it compulsory.” The exact language Sen.
Obama used in the July 2nd speech to which
Mr. Goldberg is referring appears below:
“…when I'm President, I will set a goal for
all American middle and high school students
to perform 50 hours of service a year, and
for all college students to perform 100
hours of service a year. This means that by
the time you graduate college, you'll have
done 17 weeks of service.
We'll reach this goal in several ways. At
the middle and high school level, we'll make
federal assistance conditional on school
districts developing service programs, and
give schools resources to offer new service
opportunities. At the community level, we'll
develop public-private partnerships so
students can serve more outside the
classroom.
For college students, I have proposed an
annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of
$4,000. To receive this credit, we'll
require 100 hours of public service. You
invest in America, and America invests in
you - that's how we're going to make sure
that college is affordable for every single
American, while preparing our nation to
compete in the 21st century.”
The reader should note that the term
“compulsory” was never used by Sen. Obama in
the above excerpt, nor in his entire speech.
Two words Sen. Obama does use in the above
excerpt are “opportunity” and “credit.”
Typically “opportunities” are exercised or
ignored through an individual’s freewill and
“credit” can be accepted as a form of
compensation. In fact, Mr. Goldberg’s
accusation that national service is
analogous to slavery or indentured servitude
is downright laughable when positioned next
to Sen. Obama’s plan for a $4,000 tax credit
in return for 100 hours of service. That’s
$40/hour of compensation for badly needed
services included tutoring and mentoring at
risk youth. It may be more pleasing to Mr.
Goldberg to see college students trying to
buy books with the $6.00/hour they’d make
serving fries at McDonald’s, but most
Americans would agree that the talents of
American college students could be put to
better use serving kids who need role
models.
Mr. Goldberg’s second major error comes in
the form of his conclusion that expanding
Americorps and the Peace Corps will decrease
overall volunteerism. As Mr. Goldberg puts
it:
“Indeed, there's ample evidence that
countries with intrusive and expensive
welfare states stifle their citizens' spirit
of charity and volunteerism precisely
because people conclude that every problem
should be solved by government. Merely
paying your taxes substitutes for charity,
and cleaning up roadside litter for two
years absolves you from doing anything
more.”
Mr. Goldberg’s thought process in the above
statement is so confounded that dissecting
it is a chore. First, incentivizing
Americans to perform volunteer work for the
benefit of each other does not constitute an
“intrusive and expensive welfare state.” The
entire purpose of national service incentive
programs is to facilitate young people to
take action instead of letting the
government take care of things for them.
Americorps volunteers choose to contribute
to society by devoting two years of their
lives to society’s biggest problems.
Secondly, as an Americorps alum I personally
take offense to Mr. Goldberg’s dismissal of
the service Americorps members perform as
“cleaning up roadside litter for two years.”
The ignorance displayed in this statement is
so profound it reveals Mr. Goldberg’s
complete and utter lack of familiarity with
the activities of Americorps members.
Americorps members work with a variety of
non-profits in the Americorps network
including, Habitat for Humanity, Teach For
America, New York Teaching Fellows, and City
Year. Activities include teaching in
low-income school districts, tutoring and
mentoring disadvantaged youth, building
affordable housing, and operating
after-school programs.
Finally, Mr. Goldberg’s overall conclusion
that participating in volunteer programs
partially funded by government money will
decrease future volunteering runs completely
against the facts. According to an
independent survey of alumni of one of the
largest Americorps programs, Americorps
participants are more likely to volunteer
after their term of service then their peers
who did not serve in Americorps. The
Americorps alums were also more likely to
participate in society in ways other than
volunteering including participation in
community groups and voting. Further, a
survey performed by Independent Sector and
Youth Service America found that adults who
began volunteering as youth are twice as
likely to volunteer as their peers who did
not volunteer when they were young.
Americorps is an incentive program designed
to facilitate national service; this
represents neither slavery, nor indentured
servitude. We who have served are proud of
the work we’ve done and honor our country by
continuing to serve and participate in our
great nation. If Mr. Goldberg had spoken to
even one Americorps member or alumni,
perhaps he would have understood how much it
means to us to hear the leaders of our
nation tell us, “You invest in America, and
America invests in you.”
Sincerely,
Michael S. Flynn
Americorps Member 2004-2006
Senator Barack Obama is
proposing to remake American society in a way that the
American public does not yet understand.
In his July 2, 2008, speech calling Americans to
national service, Obama departed from his prepared
remarks to announce his support for a mysteriously named
“civilian national security force”:
We cannot continue to rely only on our
military in order to achieve the national security
objectives that we've set. We've got to have a
civilian national security force that's just as
powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Many commentators were stumped. What is this
“civilian national security force” that must be as well
funded as the military? Is it merely our existing
civilian national security force, the militia, or
perhaps the FBI and the CIA? Or was Obama referring to
some thuggish new paramilitary street organization?
The answer to this mystery is not hidden. It is
prominently displayed in Obama’s
speeches and in the
position papers on his website. Obama is referring,
neither to the militia nor to a reincarnation of the
Brownshirts, but rather to his unprecedented plans for
universal community service for young people and for
hugely increased funding for a myriad of voluntary
service programs for the rest of us.
Earlier posts dealt with mandatory service for
middle and high school students, voluntary service
for
college students, and college “Serve-Study” laid out
in Obama’s speeches and his “Plan for Universal
Voluntary Citizen Service.” This post covers his other
service programs.
A. Green Job Corps, YouthBuild Program
Although Obama’s education proposals would
effectively reach over 90% of the 47 million middle,
high, and college students in the country (perhaps
leaving out only private secondary school children),
what about the 2 million young people who are out of
school and unemployed or in prison? To reach young
prisoners and the young unemployed, Obama will add a new
Green Job Corps, “an energy-focused youth jobs program,”
and expand by six-fold the YouthBuild Program, which
teaches housing construction to low-income youth.
B. AmeriCorps VISTA, Experience Corps, Senior
Corps
What about the middle-aged and older Americans not
covered by these programs for the young? Obama plans to
enlist retirees in his civilian national security force
“on a large scale” and to expand service programs for
baby-boomers and the elderly: AmeriCorps VISTA, the
Experience Corps, and other Senior Corps programs.
C. Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean
Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps,
Peace Corps, Global Energy Corps
Among other “transformative” community service
proposals, Obama will more than triple the number of
full-time AmeriCorps members to 250,000 and distribute
these new members among five new “Corps”:
1. a Classroom Corps for teachers and students;
2. a Health Corps to improve public health;
3. a Clean Energy Corps to conduct weatherization
and renewable energy projects;
4. a Veterans Corps to assist veterans at
institutions; and
5. a Homeland Security Corps to deal with
emergencies.
Not only will “Barack Obama . . . double the Peace
Corps to 16,000 by its 50th anniversary in 2011 and push
Congress to fully fund this expansion,” but he will
create a "Global Energy Corps to help reduce greenhouse
gas emissions overseas and promote low-carbon and
affordable energy solutions in developing nations.”
Barack Obama is proposing so many new “Corps” that
he runs out of distinctive names for them. Note that his
new Global Energy Corps is not to be confused with his
new Clean Energy Corps and his new Green Job Corps.
D. Social Investment Fund Network, Social
Entrepreneurship Agency for Nonprofits, Corporation for
National and Community Service
But Obama is far from finished:
Barack Obama will create a Social Investment Fund
Network, . . . a government-supported nonprofit
corporation, similar to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, that will use federal seed money to
leverage private sector funding to improve local
innovation, test the impact of new ideas and expand
successful programs to scale.
He promises us that this new corporation will not
be just a single entity, but it will involve “a network
of funds.”
That’s not all; he’s going to create a “Social
Entrepreneurship Agency for Nonprofits”:
Barack Obama will a create an agency within
the Corporation for National and Community Service
dedicated to building the capacity and effectiveness
of the nonprofit sector.
Note the tone of these proposals: none of this false
modesty about proposing these new agencies and Corps to
Congress and working for their passage. His Plan simply
declares: “Barack Obama will create” this; “Barack Obama
will create” that.
***
All these programs are just the ones listed on the
service pages of his campaign website. This list doesn’t
include his most expensive program: health care. All
these add up to the biggest expansion of the US
government since FDR. If Obama gets most of what he
wants, he will make libertarians look more fondly on the
relatively modest proposals of Lyndon Johnson and
Richard Nixon.
Obama's Corps mania sounds like someone copied a
page from the Onion and mistakenly posted it to his
campaign website. Sorry, Obamanics, but your
candidate is stark raving mad if he thinks the
American people want a chicken in every pot and a
Corps on every corner.
9.1.2008 1:47am
AndrewK :
As a high school student, I remember
being struck by the absurdity of "forced
voluntarism." Years later, I still find it
distasteful, but I realize that it was put
forth by a local school board and fully
within their rights, even if bad policy.
Forced voluntarism at the federal level is
frightening and absurd. I can only imagine
the list of organizations qualifying. Coming
from Chicago and knowing who Obama owes
favors makes me suspect that many high
school students would be assigned (or
permitted) to do grunt work at the mayor's
office.
I'm also a bit unsure of the legal
ramifications of what would probably be such
a specific and onerous condition on federal
funding for education. "You don't get the
money if you don't require each and every
student to volunteer" doesn't seem remotely
connected to any legitimate federal
interest.
9.1.2008 1:54am
Bruce H
He promises us that this new
corporation will not be just a single
entity, but it will involve “a network
of funds.”
Sounds like what he and Ayers had going
in Chicago with Annenberg. Money seems to
have shuffled around a bit, until it finally
disappeared. Sounds like something to get in
on the bottom floor with.
9.1.2008 2:11am
The General:
no doubt there will be a "get out the
[Dem] vote" corps.
Also, I'm sure all of these "volunteers"
will be unionized, eventually.
9.1.2008 2:53am
James G
Forced voluntarism or mandatory service
is just conscription (AKA the Draft). It
will be disliked as much as the military
draft as the people required to serve are
also required to give up other jobs or
activities in order to perform these
required services.
FDR started numerous programs during the
depression to put people to work and try to
kick start the economy. In the 1990s People
like Tom Hayden pushed for program where we
would send young people to college if they
then served something like five years in
some public service position (Police, Fire,
etc). The difference between these proposals
and what Obama seems to be proposing is that
the people are forced not by their need for
employment or the need to find away to pay
for college, but the need for the government
to find people to fill the quota for these
corps. How long before we must all register
for such service as men do for military
service.
9.1.2008 3:02am
Catherine:
Show the World the Best Face of America:
Barack Obama will set up an America’s
Voice Initiative within
the State Department to rapidly recruit
and train Americans who are fluent
speakers of local languages (Arabic,
Bahasa Melayu, Farsi, Urdu, and Turkish)
with public diplomacy skills. These
Americans will go overseas to
ensure our voice is heard in the mass
media and in our efforts on the ground.
While checking Obama's position papers to
make sure that this article wasn't some kind
of satire, I came across this (above).
Someone please tell me that he won't
actually have the power to do this.
9.1.2008 3:21am
Glenn W. B
Sounds like what he and Ayers had going
in Chicago with Annenberg.
I'm also a bit unsure of the legal
ramifications of what would probably be
such a specific and onerous condition on
federal funding for education. "You
don't get the money if you don't require
each and every student to volunteer"
doesn't seem remotely connected to any
legitimate federal interest.
The schools had to partner with
organizations chosen by the CAC in order to
get the money. The organizations were
radical; if the thrust of an organization
was something as basic as raising math
scores, it wouldn't have been considered for
partnership by the CAC.
To recap- it seems the CAC used the money as
a lure to partner schools with radical
organizations, the intent being radical
political indoctrination rather than
improving the students' education. No
radical politics, no money.
Somewhat related, a little history in photos
of the depression era Civilian Conservation
Corps:
"The Civilian Conservation Corps left its
monuments in the preservation and
purification of the land, the water, the
forests, and the young men of America."
Arthur S, Jr.
9.1.2008 4:02am
ornellian
All these add up to the biggest
expansion of the US government since FDR
G.W. Bush.
Fixed that for you.
9.1.2008 4:11am
spider:
Catherine 2:21am : What is your objection
to the proposed program with
Arabic/Farsi/etc. speakers?
9.1.2008 4:40am
Catherine:
You're all better-informed than I am,
which is why I normally just read the
comments here, so I suppose if you don't see
a problem, there isn't one. But since you
asked, I think our relations with these
countries are already dicy enough, we don't
need some nutty 'rapidly recruited' group of
amateurs who passed Diplomacy 101 running
around saying God knows what to them.
9.1.2008 5:13am
wb :
These cadres sounds like the brownshirts and
hitler youth to me. As for the claim of
voluntary, we all know the peer pressure
takes a lot of the freedom of choice out of
play.
And it is all to be paid for by the
redistribution of wealth program that was
the theme of the DNC.
9.1.2008 7:57am
common sense
For the programs that already exist- are
they so popular that they are at capacity?
If they are, why has no one increased
funding for them to meet the need? If they
are not at capacity, why does he want to
waste money expanding them?
9.1.2008 8:11am
Anonymous #000:
As for the claim of voluntary, we all
know the peer pressure takes a lot of
the freedom of choice out of play.
I can appreciate the problems with peer
pressure, but -- even in religious schools
-- peer pressure to do community service is
low or nonexistant. And with that, it ranges
anywhere from helping somebody set up chairs
in the gym, or going through church pews
putting hymnals in order, to real missionary
work in one's own city or in a near-by
country. But people still did it, and
usually for the right reasons.
Like the federal money and drinking age
give-and-take with the States, the program
is at best tax-funded blackmail and at worst
an Orwellian lesson in keeping in line with
the party.
9.1.2008 8:37am
VincentP:
Are these hours/years of work going to
count towards Social Security?
9.1.2008 10:13am
Norman B
There should definitely be a Street Corps
for the suppression of anti-Obama sentiment.
Recruits might come from ex-Weathermen; the
usual Daly-machine activists; "tough" unions
like the Teamsters, UAW, and longshoremen;
politically-conscious street gangs, etc.
Their activities could be coordinated
directly by the DNC through contacts in the
White House. For purposes of morale they
should have an informal uniform. Didn't
someone mention brown shirts?
9.1.2008 10:44am
Crimson:
He sure seems intent on drafting people
into everything except the military.
9.1.2008 10:58am
Anonymous #000:
And the difference was
Get yer program here!
Can't tell one socialist from another
without yer program!
Can't step like a goose without a
certain-colored noose!
Can't dance to the beat without a song
sheet!
Manifesto, sir? I have a special on this
here little red book. And the suffering has
been reduced by half -- this week only -- on
all autobiographies.
9.1.2008 11 am
AnneS:
All 13th amendment and civil liberties
questions aside, has anyone asked the
nonprofits, churches, and government
agencies who would presumably the
beneficiaries of a mandatory community
service program whether they want the
services of millions of conscripted 11, 12,
and 13 year olds? They'll need to provide
supervision for these kids, many of whom
will be unmotivated and all of whom will be
immature. Making sure these kids satisfy
this mandate will require the creation and
maintenance of new programs for adults to
take kids to volunteer sites and make sure
they behave themselves as they stuff
envelopes.
Maryland requires community service for high
schoolers - it has the effect of erecting
another barrier to graduation for borderline
students and adding another thing to the
ever-growing list of non-academic tasks that
schools have to worry about. I like Obama,
but this is an idiotic and poorly thought
out plan. Maybe we can just ask the federal
Education Department to concentrate on
making the programs Congress has already
seen fit to mandate quasi-functional before
creating a new one for them to administer in
a half-assed way. I mean, I know it's the
American way to create a program on paper
and declare victory, but I think it's time
for change.
9.1.2008 12:22pm
loki13
I;m going to post my own (heretical)
thoughts here. I have long thought that
extreme Marxism and extreme
libertarianism were but flip sides of
the same coin. The idea that all good
springs from the group, without the
individual, is antithetical to human
nature and doomed to failure. The idea
that all good springs from the
individual, without the group, is also
doomed to failure. There is a healthy
(moderate) balance between the two.
I think that in some ways, the United
States has embraced individualism to a
fault. There is little thought to civic
virtue. While I do believe that the
common good is often accomplished by
individual (and, in a non-prejorative
appelation, selfish) actions, it is also
true that the fabric of civil society is
best held together by those who also
have an eye toward the "common good".
While there are a number of private
civic organizations that continue to
perform these actions, and these should
be encouraged and lauded, I think it is
also true that in our increasingly
fragmented society, there may be a place
for government encouragement of civic
society, through both education and
increased incentives for civic work.
American P
loki13-
#1: Hong Kong. Part of China;
repressive government allowing economic
freedom.
#2: Singapore. Not a fan of canings, big
fan of bubblegum.
It's an index of economic freedom, I
should have stressed that I was
referring to the "economic" part. So
these aren't all models of social and
economic libertarianism.
But arguing that 'extreme Marxism'
has always been bad is a straw man; I
can point to countries that do fine with
various degrees of socialism (like our
neighbor to the north (7), or Ireland
(3), or Switzerland (9), or the UK (10))
Those countries aren't actually
socialist. Austrian economics (at least
Mises) refers to the "social democrat"
countries as "hampered market"
economies. They have relatively high
taxes and a high amount of regulation,
but there is still fairly strong private
enterprise there.
The point on Marxism still stands. Where
it's been done for real the results have
been as I described - bad, often
horrible.
...as well as point to the lack of an
'extreme libertarian' (stateless or near
stateless) country that has done well.
There is a difference between arguing
for less government intervention and
arguing that all government (except for
police and natl. defense) are bad.
I think you're mixing things up.
"Stateless" or "lawless" does not equal
libertarianism. Libertarianism refers to
a high degree of economic freedom
coupled with a high degree of social
freedom. Nearly all libertarians believe
in laws, just some debates on how much
government there should be.
As for examples- I think that there
has been a decline in civic mindedness
due to the boomer generation. A
combination of turned idealism (from we
will change the world to greed is good)
and distrust of America and its
government as a concept.
I'm not so sure that's it. There are
times when the government certainly
needs to be viewed with a skeptical eye
- basically all the time.
And the beauty of capitalism is that it
enables self-interest to benefit the
common good. But the babyboomers are
actually enacting statist/socialist
policies to rob the present at the
expense of the future. It's not all
their fault, the main problems with a
central bank, a fiat currency, economic
ignorance at all levels, politicians
focused on hack short-term economic
policies to ensure re-election, etc.
were present before they arrived on the
stage.
The previous generation that fought
together in WW2 as a shared enterprise
had a different take on it.
Well the problem with that is when they
create an "enterprise" that is wrong or
harmful. They tend to fanatically stick
with it, even when they are dead wrong.
But I guess that generation doesn't have
a monopoly on that kind of stubborness.
It could just be the typical 'things
were always better in the past' fallacy,
or there could be something to it; I
think that the decline in third spaces,
the increased mobility of individuals,
the breakdown of extended families, and
other factors of modern life also have
contributed to this. I think that the
government should play a *voluntary*
role in finding ways to bring some of
this back.
I think think there is a lot of
nostalgia there. A lot of it is
generational strife due to the boomers
and their parents trying to push the
younger generations around - robbing the
younger generations for their
entitlements now. (While this wasn't
done to them - they got to get ahead and
raise their families without
interference.) A lot of it is just the
economic problems from the factors
mentioned above. Not that any of it is
OK or should be tolerated.
9.1.2008 3:52pm
guest
Man, if this 'forced volunteering' did
happen, I almost wish I was young enough
to be forced to 'volunteer'.
I would be just as surly, lippy and lazy
as I could, then practically DARE the
'boss' to 'fire' me. Then I would demand
all the same benefits of those
volunteers who worked hard and were
pleasant and competent.
I would be a typical union/gov't worker,
times two.
9.1.2008 3:53pm
Andrew G:
If You Don't Agree Now, You Will Later
Around 1967 at the University of
Chicago, I was talking to one of the
radical guys in my dormitory, call him
Brad. He argued that only a radical
change in government would bring about a
better society. I disagreed.
He said that his movement would become
stronger, and eventually I would agree
with him. I asked, what if I didn't
agree with him, even later? He flashed
anger and told me that if I didn't agree
on my own, he would make me
agree. I saw that as the end of the
discussion.
(Continued
at EasyOpinions - Leading the People)
9.1.2008 3:58pm
Lyle z:
Mandatory service? Obama doesnt
understand the power of a volunteer
workforce. He doesn't understand that
this is what makes our military so
strong. If these programs are so great,
why are they mandatory? What else
doesn't he understand? No thanks, I'll
vote for the other guy.
9.1.2008 4:17pm
Charlie (Colorado)
Senator Barack Obama is proposing to
remake American society in a way
that the American public does not
yet understand.
Perhaps we could ask Andrea Merkel to
explain it?
9.1.2008 4:33pm
Rebecca
I'll take the "Blame the Boomers" line
and what lies beneath.
All of the slippery slope arguments are
being vindicated before our eyes. From
the much scoffed at assertion that
unchecked abortion rights would lead to
a public acceptance of vanity based
infanticide (and yes, I personally know
one woman who aborted a child when she
discovered that it was female), to the
Culture Wars gambit that lead to a
"need" for the creation of youth corps.
How many years has the left spent
deriding and condemning the traditional
sources of civic pride? We've been
inundated with messages that there is
something fascistic about saluting the
flag, joining the military, and saying
the pledge of allegiance. Progressives
having been busily scraping a hole where
we once found positive outlets for young
people to do good works. If churches are
painted as refuges for narrow-minded
bigots and creepy sexual predators, they
are no longer places where teens will
find their way toward the experience of
doing charitable works. If the ROTC is
portrayed as a training ground for baby
killers, what decent minded young person
would funnel their nobler energies into
participating there? As every
institution that once served to usher us
from the selfishness of childhood into a
humane and giving adulthood has been
torn down, ridiculed, and demonized,
they will now offer us a grand new
scheme to fill the vacuum that they
created.
Isn't a healthy dose of skepticism
called for? If volunteerism in the
service of noble goals is such a vitally
important part of civilized society,
then why did the same actors participate
so enthusiastically in tearing down the
structures that used to encourage such
acts? And yes, Bill Ayers is one who
comes immediately to mind. He and his
friends have been much busier in the
last 30-40 years than most of us
realized.
I don't want to live in the brave new
world these baby boomer losers are
trying to foist on us, nor do I want my
children marching lock-step in their
little armies. Obama is free to run for
the office of president, but the "Leader
of the Free World" part is an honorary
designation, not a damn mandate.
9.1.2008 4:39pm
Lawson:
For the programs that already exist-
are they so popular that they are at
capacity? If they are, why has no
one increased funding for them to
meet the need? If they are not at
capacity, why does he want to waste
money expanding them?
It's difficult to tell if they're at
capacity or not - I'd think not... but
there's no emphasis I've seen at all on
filling them out. No "wee need more
volunteers' articles in the local
liberal rag, no ads on TV or the like...
I think the thinking is - "If you're
interested, you'll find us and
volunteer. If you don't, we weren't
really needing you anyway."
Their budget - $888,462,000 for '09,
according to their web site.
I'm suspicious of any sort of 'mandatory
volunteerism', personally. Make it
mandatory, and that kind of cancels out
the 'volunteer' part. This expansion of
'voluntary/mandatory service' isn't
something that's exactly endearing as
far as Obama's plans for the country
goes. I wonder how long it'll be until
he proposes changing the flag, as well?
9.1.2008 4:43pm
Spitzer:
I think El Presidente BHO's proposals
are wonderfully modest. Unfortunately,
too many anti-social acts occur to be
rectified merely by requiring an equal
number of good acts. We would be far
better served by punishing anti-social
acts. But here too, the problem (well
known in crime studies, called the
"black figure" - or, in Rumsfeld's
terms, the "unknown unknowns") is that
an undetermined number of anti-social
acts are undiscovered, and so cannot be
punished. Thus, our Dear Leader's
proposals could be improved if he
established a corps for children to
report their parents' un-PC statements
or acts to the appropriate authorities.
A lateral benefit of this Obama Youth
Corps would be to inculcate children
with proper political values - change,
hope, and permanent revolution - in a
more direct way than publically-funded
schools have heretofore managed.
9.1.2008 4:51pm
Crafty Hunter:
George Orwell would have immediately
recognised the term "mandatory
volunteerism".
9.1.2008 5:08pm
Superdestroyer:
All you have to do is look at elitism in
the U.S. to determine who mandatory
volunteerism would work out. the
children of the elite will get the
positions that look good on a resume.
The children of the middle class will
end up wasting their time. The children
of the poor will end up picking up
trash.
Does anyone believe that a president who
believes that race and ethnicity is more
important than ability will be able to
develop a functional volunteer program
instead of some horrible example of
political correctness?
In addition, look at the summer jobs
program in DC this summer. No show jobs,
poor management, some not paid for work,
non-students working. What makes anyone
that such a program can be expanded to
the national level?
9.1.2008 5:52pm
banbob
Hussein ought to first get the welfare
parasites to be the volunteers. Food for
work. When he accomplishes that, that is
when he should get back to us. The
democrats picked another McGovern and
without the redeeming features. The only
real question is whether McCain will win
40 states or 45?
9.1.2008 6:18pm
Smokey:
Cornellian:
All these add up to the biggest
expansion of the US government since
FDR G.W. Bush.
Fixed that for you.
Cornelian, are you seriously
proposing that GWB expanded the federal
government anywhere near as much as FDR?
If you were serious, you're delusional
in the extreme.
Obama the
empty suit, the Affirmative Action
HE-RO, wants to take our 11 and
12 year old kids for indoctrination.
Isn't that a
swell idea?
9.1.2008 6:38pm
Cubanbob
Loki as substantial as your Marxist
Manchurian Candidate.
Speaking of welfare parasites if McCain
has a pair first thing he should do is
issue an executive order suspending the
Davis - Bacon Act and impounding federal
funds from local and state governments
that have such laws on the books. That
and repeal the tax exempt status of
private schools and colleges along with
freezing pensions and all other spending
to last years actual expenditures. Heck,
he might even balance the budget in his
first year if he did that.
As for coerced volunteerism, like I said
let the parasites first work for their
food and shelter. Then get back to us
actual net taxpayers.
9.1.2008 6:56pme
erp:
Remember Clinton's America Corps -
volunteers who were getting $23.00/hr
quite a bit over the minimum wage. We
don't need any more laws or nonsensical
schemes, we have more than enough of
both.
Government should back off, lay off
"do-gooders" and let those who know what
they're doing to get on with it. Mr.
Obama should go back to teaching. That's
where his ego would be best served and
where he will have an endless stream of
adoring fans.
9.1.2008 7:27pm
Anon #456223
I "volunteered" with AmeriCorps. I received a "stipend"
not a "salary" or "wage". Described above, as a child of
the middle class, I wasted my time.
Or perhaps not. The "stipend" I received worked out to
be a pretty good equivalent of an hourly "wage." And, no
accountability, no responsibility, no actual work to do.
Oh man, good times.
I'm in total support of this. In a few years, my child
will need a car. This would be a great way for him to
"earn" the money and learn about the uselessness of
government.
9.1.2008 7:51pm
Renholder:
It seems to me that the only mandatory
volunteerism would be his
middle-school/high-school component. I am
against it, but he does reference
,service-learning, which I think isn't
too terrible. I am not really ready to get
up in arms about 6 days a year. Besides,
anyone can see that NCLB is far greater
federal intervention..
There are already dozens of programs that do
what Obama is proposing (Teach for america,
state and federal americorps, peace corps)
he's not proposing conscripting anyone to do
those things, just expand the opportunities
for people who want to do them.
I actually think his college volunteer
program is kind of neat, the cost of college
tuition is a real problem.
9.1.2008 7:53pm
Syd H
Where does the talk of "mandatory" or
"forced volunteerism" come from?
9.1.2008 8:02pm
James L:
Marty A:
Please do not call Barack Obama "Hussein."
The point has already been many times
before. It's not the name he generally goes
by.
9.1.2008 8:12pm
Tim s
Wow, a liberal version of the draft or maybe
a liberal version of mandatory volunteerism
or maybe call it what it is, a liberal
version of benevolent slavery.
I wonder how those verbal terrorists over at
koz or DU will respond.
9.1.2008 8:43pm
Spitzer:
Maybe President Obama could create a
volunteer program to help the poor. Much the
way that Obama helped his own
brother in Kenya. If he helps the poor
of America as much as he helped his own kin
(who
lives on less than $1 a day), then
everything will be swell.
9.1.2008 8:43pm
Smokey:
Syd Henderson:
Where does the talk of "mandatory" or
"forced volunteerism" come from
From the same hard-bitten taxpayers who will
have to bear this giant additional tax
burden.
Obama is on record as saying his domestic
"force" should be funded to the same extent
as the U.S. military.
Individual federal income taxes have risen
about 50% from when Reagan was in office.
Can I see a show of hands: who thinks that
things are 50% better now?
And who thinks that Obama's big new idea to
spend $500 billion+ more every year on this
make-work indoctrination project will be
worth the money spent?
...Spicoli? ...Anyone?
9.1.2008 8:53pm
Xenocles
"We've got to have a civilian national
security force that's just as powerful, just
as strong, just as well-funded."
Damn, I thought he was going to buy us all
guns.
9.1.2008 9:02pm
Steph
Also, I'm sure all of these "volunteers"
will be unionized, eventually.
Hell to stop forced labour I would agree
with a union.
As to cubabob why should private schools
lose their tax exempt clasification?
Assuming they are not for profit? Don't we
want to encourage education?
Also, I'm sure all of these "volunteers"
will be unionized, eventually.
Hell to stop forced labour I would agree
with a union.
As to cubabob why should private schools
lose their tax exempt clasification?
Assuming they are not for profit? Don't we
want to encourage education?
9.1.2008 9:10pm
Doc W
Two thoughts--
1. Funny how 12-year-olds are too young to
get real jobs, do real work, make real
money, help their families and save for
college--but they're old enough to be
drafted by Obama into his make-work program.
2. I suggest the best service that young
people can perform is attend to their
studies, get a real job in the private
"sector", support themselves and their
families, save for retirement, pay their own
way, and give Big Brother the badfinger at
the polling booth.
By the way, the above is no advertisement
for McCain, an anti-free-speech warmonger.
If you believe people should be accorded the
right to live their own lives and pursue
their own goals in non-coercive interaction
with others, the only candidate out there is
Bob Barr.
9.1.2008 11:33pm
Brian G
Oh yeah, thesed ideas are brilliant. They'll
all work like a charm, just like the DMV and
post office.
9.1.2008 11:51pm
David W
Doc W,
I think perhaps the chief tragedy of our
time is the proportion of the population,
especially the intellectual population,
either oblivious to or dismissive of the
actual productive economy in which most
adults participate and in which 90% of the
meaningful "service" of, by, and for the
people is carried out.
9.2.2008 12:05am
David D.:
The whole post is pretty far off base. When
Barack talks about a "civilian national
security force", he's talking about
strengthening and improving the civilian
arms of government that operate overseas,
like the State Department.
He might also want to increase opportunities
for Americans to participate in volunteer
programs, but that's not what the quote is
about.
9.2.2008 12:09am
David W
I look forward to the day when teaching Marx
in Economics will be viewed with distaste
equal to that felt toward the teaching of
Creation Science in Biology.
When Barack talks about a "civilian
national security force", he's talking
about strengthening and improving the
civilian arms of government that operate
overseas, like the State Department.
Earth to David D...
9.2.2008 12:17am
As to the substance of Obama's proposals, I am
agnostic. Politics is the art of the possible; this
has identified a problem, and I know that this will
not pass as proposed.
After all, we are our brother's keeper. We do not
simply do for ourself, and hope the invisible hand
keeps our brother safe.
9.1.2008 12:43pm
Davod
The Churches would not mind. After Obama
does a Hugo Chavez and creates his own
church, all churches, and thereore the
volunteers, would fall under the government,
archbishop Obama's, program.
9.1.2008 12:54pm
Milhouse
We are our brothers' keepers? Since when?
Who made us that, and why should we accept
it?
9.1.2008 12:54pm
FlimFlamSam:
"Brownshirts? Nah, NKVD!"
And the difference was?
The NKVD were MUCH more brutal, and yet
history has almost forgotten them thanks to
the Duranty-esque whitewash of Soviet crimes
by leftist reporters and historians.
9.1.2008 12:57pm
Davod
Obama did nothing for the Chicago school
system with $110 million. Imagine how he
could screw up the country with federal
resources at his disposal.
9.1.2008 12:58pm
A Z
James L
"Your last point actually surprises me to
some extent, having read the Audacity of
Hope."
That's funny because that was the immediate
impression I got from his books. Even to
write a memoir in one's thirties is an act
born of narcissism.
9.1.2008 1:04pm
loki13
davod,
I thought that Congress has the power of
both the "sword and the purse". It is no
longer clear after this administration if
the Congress really has the power of the
sword (although, in fairness, you can trace
this back to Vietnam); are you arguing that
Obama will take control of the purse as
well? Or that the Republicans will lose so
badly that the Democrats will have 60 votes
in the Senate, and all will vote with Obama
and take their orders from him?
9.1.2008 1:04pm
MartyA:
The Annenberg money was never meant to do
anything for Chicago education; Hussein and
Ayers intended to simply transfer someone
else's wealth to their friends and political
allies. I believe Dr. Kurtz' investigation
will turn up evidence that will convince
even the most irrational Husseinians. The
knee jerk opposition to Kurtz' investigation
is, to me, proof that there is something to
be found.
And, once you accept that Hussein is nothing
but another cheap, crooked Chicago race
hustler, you'll also recognize that all the
domestic corps programs are nothing more
than programs to put politically vetted pals
on the public payroll where very little will
be expected of them. It will be modeled
after Hussein's public service.
9.1.2008 1:08p
loki13
MartyA,
As has been discussed previously, if you
wish to be taken seriously, you should
probably refrain from the over-the-top
rhetoric. Do you call McCain "Sidney"? How
about John Sidney McCain III? No? Then why
should anyone read (let alone believe) your
comments?
BTW, did you mention civic/national service?
I lost you at "Hussein".
9.1.2008 1:12pm
Anonymous #000:
loki13, your 11:34 post was interesting, but
I'll just bite here:
I have long thought that extreme
Marxism and extreme libertarianism were
but flip sides of the same coin.
I wanted to say the kernel of difference is
that between voluntary collective action and
coerced collective action, but I realized
(given my little knowledge of it) that one
could make the case that Marxism is more
about reacting to supposed coercive action.
In which case, it seems we're no longer
comparing political theories but a political
theory and a conspiracy theory.
Personally: I accept libertarianism to the
extent that it meshes with my own
voluntaryism. Collectivism is a big red
herring for both sides. It's just that the
Left likes to beat people with it.
9.1.2008 1:12pm
American Psikhushka
loki13-
I;m going to post my own (heretical)
thoughts here. I have long thought that
extreme Marxism and extreme libertarianism
were but flip sides of the same coin. The
idea that all good springs from the group,
without the individual, is antithetical to
human nature and doomed to failure. The idea
that all good springs from the individual,
without the group, is also doomed to
failure. There is a healthy (moderate)
balance between the two.
You're leaving the economic system out of
it. Marxism has them taking (stealing) all
property and then redistributing it based on
government opinions of "need". Eventually
this always results in stagnation, declining
standards of living, and very often poverty
and starvation. (Also rampant corruption,
because government and party officials very
often mysteriously start deciding that their
families, friends, cronies, etc. "need" a
surprising high share of the "people's"
property, the plumb jobs, etc.)
And libertarians have no problem with civic
virtue, volunteerism, charity, etc. as long
as it is voluntary - all time and monies
given to these organizations or efforts are
freely given with no coercion, threats, etc.
Of course the organizations have to be
pursuing legal, moral, legitimate ends as
well. If a "voluntary charity" involves
harassing and stealing from particular
ethnic groups and then spending the money on
charity members or giving it away that isn't
a legitimate "charity", it's a criminal
group.
So libertarianism has no problem with
charities and civic organizations as long as
they are truly voluntary, their funding is
truly voluntary, and they are pursuing
legitimate ends that don't harm anyone or
violate their rights. In my opinion that is
consistent with true civic-mindedness - not
trying to force you views, projects, or
opinions on others.
From the sound of it I think various
rightwing and leftwing ideologues have
painted the picture of libertarians as
selfish, mean, bitter, greedy hermits,
likely because they wouldn't go along with
whichever agendas or projects the ideologues
were forcing or trying to push on people at
the time. That isn't the case.
9.1.2008 1:15pm
Anonymous #000:
If a "voluntary charity" involves
harassing and stealing from particular
ethnic groups and then spending the
money on charity members or giving it
away that isn't a legitimate "charity",
it's a criminal group.
Note that this is a simple case of rent
seeking, which any economist could tell you
results from manipulating prices. And yet
politicians routinely propose price controls
and their equivalents (quantity
restrictions, etc).
9.1.2008 1:18pm
)
loki13
A.P.,
No, I think we don't disagree on some
things. I think there is a difference
between a healthy understanding of economics
and "extreme libertarianism". There is a
reason and purpose for government, and
reason we have one. Given the complexities
of modern life, and the imperfections of the
market (not to mention normative societal
goals), a government that exists with the
consent of the governed is necessary. Once
that is established, the question becomes
one of particularity- is a given
intervention good or bad.
Extreme libertarianism, like extreme
Marxism, presupposes that ideology has the
answer; either government is always bad, or
government is always good. I prefer the
intermediate route, which is to have
government on the sidelines as much as
possible (call it a presumption), but also
acknowledge how necessary it is for certain
issues (a rebutable presumption). I think
there is a problem with the civic-mindedness
in the United States; as mentioned, I do not
know that Obama's plan is a good way to
address it; I would rather see alternative
plans mooted than the critique I have been
seeing, "BHO is a collectivist and wants to
bring back the brownshirts!"
Personally, I blame the boomers for the lack
of civic-mindedness, and should we continue
down this course, we'll be no better than
Nigeria, with everyone demanding some
baksheesh to accomplish what they should be
accomplishing. Or, at least, a high-paying
lobbying job.
9.1.2008 1:27pm
American Psikhushka
Anonymous #000-
Note that this is a simple case of rent
seeking, which any economist could tell you
results from manipulating prices. And yet
politicians routinely propose price controls
and their equivalents (quantity
restrictions, etc).
Well yes, but if you have a criminal law
which forbids stealing - as all legal
systems do - then it is clearly stealing and
other forms of crime as well. And I
mentioned ethnicity in the example though I
really didn't get into it. If they are
targeting specific ethnic groups this is
racist, ethnosupremicist, discriminatory,
etc. as well.
And in the example if politicians were
imposing price controls based on ethnicity
this would clearly be racist, approaching a
kind of neo-nazi social engineering.
9.1.2008 1:30pm
EPluribusMoney
Wow! Can we all wear matching brown shirts?!
9.1.2008 1:42pm
davod
I think we are forgetting one aspect of the
compulsory volunteer programs and that is
all the pretty uniforms.
And the Dems have been saying for eight
years that Bush would bring back the draft.
9.1.2008 1:42pm
Anonymous #000:
loki13,
Extreme libertarianism, like extreme
Marxism, presupposes that ideology has
the answer; either government is always
bad, or government is always good. I
prefer the intermediate route, which is
to have government on the sidelines as
much as possible (call it a
presumption), but also acknowledge how
necessary it is for certain issues (a
rebutable presumption).
As far as I understand libertarianism, it
recognizes government as a tool: first for
self-defence, then for law and order, and
then maybe for dealing with externalities
(well, that's what I've read, anyway). It's
bad in that it can't be trusted to be good.
I don't think what you're describing is that
different, and I don't know what you really
think the difference is.
American Psikhushka, indeed, but it's so
much less disturbing to think about when I
pretend that proponents of such systems
would ever accept the logic of rent seeking
being a bad thing. They usually shout one
down, instead.
9.1.2008 1:43pm
loki13
Anonymous #000,
I think you should be able to gather the
difference from both what I have said and
the (many) comments by others on the (many)
posts here. A fanatic is one who fits the
facts into their ideology; a realist shapes
their ideology to fit the facts at hand.
I don't believe that a libertarians would
necessarily stop there, even committed ones;
you list national defense; that is merely
one example of a public good (with
associated free rider problems). There are
other public goods that some (most?)
libertarians would see that there would be a
need for government intervention.
Some libertarians, conversely, would prefer
private methods for dealing with
externalities (viewing it in terms of Coase,
as opposed to a Pigou); I think that's silly
due to transaction costs, but go figger.
I could go on, but you get the point. I hate
ideologies as much as I hate Illinois Nazis.
9.1.2008 1:58pm
MLS:
"Mandatory charity" has been a hallmark of
life in the corporate world. It goes by the
name "United Way".
"Mandatory volunteerism" has a catchy ring
to it.
If public school students should wear
uniforms, shouldn't adults lead by example
by doing the same thing? Before I support
any such proposal, however, I do want to see
color swatches. My eyes are blue and some
shades of brown do not bring out their full
color and do them justice.
Given the plethora of proposed "corps", can
a proposal for a "Corps Czar" be far behind?
9.1.2008 2:02pm
Anonymous #000:
I think you're missing the sociological
factor. Even a minarchy can't withstand a
communist revolution.
Small-'L' libertarianism can be just an
ideal, but it requires most of us to accept
that ideal, otherwise it stops working
(status quo coerced or complete upset).
I guess I'm just not deep enough in the
Volokh clique, since I don't know how all
that differs from what you said or what
Illinoi Nazis have to do with it.
9.1.2008 2:05pm
Loki13
Anonymous #000,
I think that the best way to forestall a
communist revolution is to forgo extreme
libertarianism. Just as todays libertarians
misread and misrepresent Adam Smith, so did
yesterdays Marxists misread and misrepresent
Marx. Which is why both Wealth of Nations
and Das Kapital should be required reading
in all introductory econ. courses.
The scathing critique, backed by statistics,
that Marx wrote of capitalism, did not come
to pass, because of the rise both of
democracy and unions. This is not to be,
necessarily, pro-union (although I am
pro-democracy), but the idea of revolution
is unlikely to come about unless people
believe that their situation is both
miserable and unlikely to improve for both
themselves and their children. While this
does not argue for wealth redistribution, it
does mean that certain things are necessary-
protection of stability to allow for
individual freedom and economic opportunity,
while also affording opportunity to the
least of us. This is a delicate balance, and
it is easy to go to far either way (too much
intervention leads to inefficient markets
and slow economic growth, hurting everyone,
while a completely bifurcated class
structure lends itself to a poor outcome for
society as a whole, and breeds the
conditions that make revolution more
likely).
I think it was remarked, if you ain't got
nothin', you got nothin' to lose. The genius
of America is to make sure that people have
something to lose. That's where civic
mindedness (and ownership) comes in.
9.1.2008 2:20pm
American Psikhushka
loki13-
I think there is a difference between a
healthy understanding of economics and
"extreme libertarianism".
All very subjective. What some might label
"extreme libertarianism" might just mean
that they aren't aware of certain economic
principles.
There is a reason and purpose for
government, and reason we have one.
Yes. But sometimes the reasons and purposes
are incorrect, wasteful, harmful,
disproportionate, etc. A police force
(providing it is honest, fair, effective,
and not corrupt) is generally agreed to be a
necessity. But what about a police force
whose function is to steal from and exploit
a particular ethnic group, as in some
totalitarian regimes? This is government
that has no legitimate reason and no
legitimate purpose, and therefore does more
harm than good.
Given the complexities of modern life,
and the imperfections of the market (not to
mention normative societal goals)
Often what are called "market failures" are
just certain interests trying to rig,
control, etc. various markets in their
favor.
a government that exists with the consent
of the governed is necessary. Once that is
established, the question becomes one of
particularity- is a given intervention good
or bad.
There are also governments or parts of
governments that are not consensual, not
legitimate, and sometimes illegal - going
against the laws of the government in
question.
Extreme libertarianism, like extreme
Marxism, presupposes that ideology has the
answer; either government is always bad, or
government is always good.
Well the label "extreme libertarianism" is a
problem because I'm not sure how you're
defining it. According to sources like the
economic freedom index, generally the
more economically free (the more it
approaches libertarianism) a country is the
more successful and prosperous it is.
But extreme Marxism has demontrably always
been bad - eventually resulting in
stagnation, declining living standards, and
very often poverty and starvation. It also
basically requires a police state to exist
and usually is plagued with rampant
corruption.
I think there is a problem with the
civic-mindedness in the United States;
Personally, I blame the boomers for the
lack of civic-mindedness, and should we
continue down this course, we'll be no
matter than Nigeria, with everyone demanding
some baksheesh to accomplish what they
should be accomplishing. Or, at least, a
high-paying lobbying job.
Not sure what you mean here, could you
elaborate or give examples?
I followed the link. Of note are some of the
top performers:
#1: Hong Kong. Part of China; repressive
government allowing economic freedom.
#2: Singapore. Not a fan of canings, big fan
of bubblegum.
Don't even get me started on the socialized
medicine on that list! Anyway, I agree that
totalitarianism is bad (are there those who
argue otherwise, other than the dictators
themselves and their flunkies). But arguing
that 'extreme Marxism' has always been bad
is a straw man; I can point to countries
that do fine with various degrees of
socialism (like our neighbor to the north
(7), or Ireland (3), or Switzerland (9), or
the UK (10)) as well as point to the lack of
an 'extreme libertarian' (stateless or near
stateless) country that has done well. There
is a difference between arguing for less
government intervention and arguing that all
government (except for police and natl.
defense) are bad.
As for examples- I think that there has been
a decline in civic mindedness due to the
boomer generation. A combination of turned
idealism (from we will change the world to
greed is good) and distrust of America and
its government as a concept. The previous
generation that fought together in WW2 as a
shared enterprise had a different take on
it. This is a personal view, and YMMV. It
could just be the typical 'things were
always better in the past' fallacy, or there
could be something to it; I think that the
decline in third spaces, the increased
mobility of individuals, the breakdown of
extended families, and other factors of
modern life also have contributed to this. I
think that the government should play a
*voluntary* role in finding ways to bring
some of this back.
It had been predicted that Hawaii would be hit by at
least one missile on July 4th. Either North Korea couldn't
get their missiles that far, or they didn't try - which was
it? N. Korea Fires 7 Missiles Off Eastern Coast
North Korea Saturday fired seven
ballistic missiles off its eastern coast over a stretch of
several hours, violating the U.N. sanctions and sending an
apparent message of defiance to the United States which
commemorated its Independence Day.
"North Korea fired two missiles toward the East Sea from the
Gitdaeryong base near Wonsan, Gangwon Province, between 8:00
a.m. and 8:30 a.m. today. And it fired another one into the
East Sea from the same site around 10:45 a.m.," Yonhap
reported citing an official at the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(JCS).
All the missiles are estimated to have a range of 400-500km,
covering the entire South Korea within the target range.
South Korea's foreign ministry lashed out at the reclusive
neighbor's ballistic missile launch, calling it a clear
violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions that ban the
communist nation from any activity related to a ballistic
missile program.
"It is a provocative act that clearly violates U.N. Security
Council resolutions 1695, 1718, and 1874 that bar North
Korea's every activity related to ballistic missiles," the
ministry said in a statement.
"The government expresses deep regret over North Korea's
continued acts to escalate tensions in Northeast Asia in
ignorance of the U.N. Security Council resolutions and urges
North Korea to faithfully implement the resolutions," it
added.
The launches came two days after North Korea fired four
short-range cruise missiles and will likely ramp up the
already charged tension in the region as Washington tries to
solicit support for strict enforcement of the U.N. sanctions
on Pyongyang for its nuclear test in May.
The official said the North shot three more missiles from
the same site at around noon, at 2:50 p.m. and at 4:10 p.m.,
adding the military is analyzing the exact type of the
missiles and North Korea's intentions.
The authorities said the missiles are apparently ballistic
ones, probably a Scud type, given the trajectory and flight
distances. But they did not rule out the possibility that
what the North fired might have actually been Rodong
missiles, a modification of Scud missiles.
The North is believed to have about 1,000 ballistic missiles
alone ― including nearly 700 Scud missiles of various types
and 320 Rodong missiles.
Previously, North Korea test-fired a long-range Taepodong-2
missile, along with several short-and mid-range missiles, on
U.S. Independence Day in 2006.
WWIII COMING. ISRAEL'S
PART IN THE WAR......You might have
missed that we are in the middle of World War III. A full
scale, vicious, violent, bloody war is...
"There will be a World War
III and it will be started by a man who wears the turban of
the faith, a Moslem. He will be an antichrist put on earth by
Lucifer. Yet there...
Commenting on Bush's "World
War III" warning, Jane's Information Group Alex Vatanka
said: "The United States could take care of Iran militarily in
short order.
WWI 40 million - WWII 88
million - Rev 9:16 - WWIII - 200 million. I am not
a preacher, nor a theologian. I am a seer, a visionary. I'm
don't feel that I'm good at...
WORLD WAR III...The second picture told that the
war that started in the Middle East would escalate into
WWIII....WWI, WWII,
and WWIII, the red being Russian.
Oct 2, 1998 – But, as the three planes, one by one dove into the
pool of water, and I saw the shield fly overhead, I knew this was
really the start of WWIII.
The second picture was of the
same war and that it was escalating into WWiII. The
fourth picture was of a question about the price of corn in
June, 1998.
The second picture told that the
war that started in the Middle East would escalate into WWIII.
The third picture told that we need to know the price of corn in
Ohio...
Sep 7, 2011 – ...tech" life style you've come accustomed to even
after the use of a nuclear device has been used by terrorists—or
there is an all-out WWIII.
Sep 30, 2004 – of the predicted "Antichrist 3" (a term
used by Nostradamus), WWIII, or the "end-time"
conspiratorial triad of the 'Antichrist', 'final pope', and
the...
(18) Is President Bush by
his actions catapulting us into World War III and
bringing forth the final.....We are definitely on the verge of WWIII
and Armegeddon.
His latest Prediction is
that the Vatican will take control over the Temple Mount in
Jerusalem on the 4th July 2010 or 2011 which will start
WWIII. His Prediction...
Apr 12, 2010 – Be real hard to do WWIII, eh,
human twerps! Watch the Cosmos, earth stuff wimpy!
PLANETARY LINE UP - 2000. 10-23-01 - Another comet hits...
The 1111 date will be the
beginning of WWIII. I am not the only person that
has been seeing the 1111 as you well know. I wonder if
others have come to the .
Posted by: npr | July 09, 2008 at 03:30 AM
Posted by: Anthrodiva | July 09, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Many of us have been asking for years for our country to push for national service. Compulsion never bothered Mr. Goldberg and his ilk when it came to national military service, so why would building things cause him more concern than killing people as a nationally required service to one's country?
It all depends on how you look at it. In my mind, it's a quid pro quo: the state educates children until the age of 18, at which point that citizen gives back 18 months of service in the area of his or her choice. That could mean military or Americorps type work as well as any number of other national holes we need to fill: delivery of food, supplies, and assistance to the elderly or disabled; teaching and classroom assisting; infrastructure upkeep; park/beach/lake/trail maintenance; and a hundred other needs that have gone unfilled for too long.
With life expectancy lengthened, job mobility and career switching a fact of American life, and the hurried need to finish college and begin a career by age 22 no longer operating, why not? (And, if a student is not college-bound, I see no reason why that youth couldn't start on the volunteer path at age 16.) Imagine the tens of thousands of disaffected and untethered young people - especially children of recent immigrants who have not yet found their place in this system - participating in their country's betterment, seeing their labors as meaningful and worthwhile and necessary to their full citizenship, and forging friendships with other American youth from different cultures, regions, and backgrounds. I can see no better way to connect young people to this democracy.
Posted by: Andy Eppink | July 09, 2008 at 08:59 AM
Posted by: Jonah GoldSlave | July 09, 2008 at 09:43 AM
Posted by: kid charlemagne | July 09, 2008 at 09:52 AM
Posted by: James in SB | July 09, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Posted by: Clyde Nugget | July 09, 2008 at 01:13 PM
race of baiting. It's an obsession for him.
You have to have certain mental bent to equate
Barack Obama call for volunteerism with slavery.
Goldberg is an embarassment to Jews,
including the owner of the L.A. Times. The Times needs to sever there relationship with Goldberg immediately
In an attempt to belittle Barack Obama and slavery Goldberg belittled himself. It is time for him to begone.
Using Goldberg's reasoning anyone who receieves college assitance for attending the mititary academies, ROTC or serving in the military is a slave. Goldberg didn't say that because his focus once again is on skin color.
Posted by: gipper1 | July 09, 2008 at 02:19 PM
Editorials and opinion pieces in many national newspapers are poorly researched and exhibit suspect logic, but Jonah Goldberg’s July 8th piece on national service (Forced Servitude in America?) reaches for the pantheon of mediocrity. Mr. Goldberg’s attempt to equate national service initiatives such as Americorps to slavery, smacks of a middle school student’s attempt to grab his audience’s attention through shock. What follows is an opinion piece that is poorly researched and misrepresents the facts
Mr. Goldberg’s first major misrepresentation comes in the proclamation that Sen. Obama wants to make national service compulsory. Mr. Goldberg writes, “If you don't make the kids report for duty, he's [Obama] essentially telling schools and college kids, you'll lose money you can't afford to lose. In short, he'll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory.” The exact language Sen. Obama used in the July 2nd speech to which Mr. Goldberg is referring appears below:
“…when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.
We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.
For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.”
The reader should note that the term “compulsory” was never used by Sen. Obama in the above excerpt, nor in his entire speech. Two words Sen. Obama does use in the above excerpt are “opportunity” and “credit.” Typically “opportunities” are exercised or ignored through an individual’s freewill and “credit” can be accepted as a form of compensation. In fact, Mr. Goldberg’s accusation that national service is analogous to slavery or indentured servitude is downright laughable when positioned next to Sen. Obama’s plan for a $4,000 tax credit in return for 100 hours of service. That’s $40/hour of compensation for badly needed services included tutoring and mentoring at risk youth. It may be more pleasing to Mr. Goldberg to see college students trying to buy books with the $6.00/hour they’d make serving fries at McDonald’s, but most Americans would agree that the talents of American college students could be put to better use serving kids who need role models.
Mr. Goldberg’s second major error comes in the form of his conclusion that expanding Americorps and the Peace Corps will decrease overall volunteerism. As Mr. Goldberg puts it:
“Indeed, there's ample evidence that countries with intrusive and expensive welfare states stifle their citizens' spirit of charity and volunteerism precisely because people conclude that every problem should be solved by government. Merely paying your taxes substitutes for charity, and cleaning up roadside litter for two years absolves you from doing anything more.”
Mr. Goldberg’s thought process in the above statement is so confounded that dissecting it is a chore. First, incentivizing Americans to perform volunteer work for the benefit of each other does not constitute an “intrusive and expensive welfare state.” The entire purpose of national service incentive programs is to facilitate young people to take action instead of letting the government take care of things for them. Americorps volunteers choose to contribute to society by devoting two years of their lives to society’s biggest problems.
Secondly, as an Americorps alum I personally take offense to Mr. Goldberg’s dismissal of the service Americorps members perform as “cleaning up roadside litter for two years.” The ignorance displayed in this statement is so profound it reveals Mr. Goldberg’s complete and utter lack of familiarity with the activities of Americorps members. Americorps members work with a variety of non-profits in the Americorps network including, Habitat for Humanity, Teach For America, New York Teaching Fellows, and City Year. Activities include teaching in low-income school districts, tutoring and mentoring disadvantaged youth, building affordable housing, and operating after-school programs.
Finally, Mr. Goldberg’s overall conclusion that participating in volunteer programs partially funded by government money will decrease future volunteering runs completely against the facts. According to an independent survey of alumni of one of the largest Americorps programs, Americorps participants are more likely to volunteer after their term of service then their peers who did not serve in Americorps. The Americorps alums were also more likely to participate in society in ways other than volunteering including participation in community groups and voting. Further, a survey performed by Independent Sector and Youth Service America found that adults who began volunteering as youth are twice as likely to volunteer as their peers who did not volunteer when they were young.
Americorps is an incentive program designed to facilitate national service; this represents neither slavery, nor indentured servitude. We who have served are proud of the work we’ve done and honor our country by continuing to serve and participate in our great nation. If Mr. Goldberg had spoken to even one Americorps member or alumni, perhaps he would have understood how much it means to us to hear the leaders of our nation tell us, “You invest in America, and America invests in you.”
Sincerely,
Michael S. Flynn
Americorps Member 2004-2006
Posted by: Michael Flynn | July 09, 2008 at 09:43 PM
FROM: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/07/obama-slavery-a.html