Misplaced Trust

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” - Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution

A founding tradition in America is the belief that the purpose of  government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens.[1]  Most today would have a difficult time explaining how our fraudulent US financial system protects the property of anyone but bankers and the well-connected.[2]  Yet despite a growing mistrust of the federal government, whenever Big Brother talks about threats to our safety, “free” people are still reduced to pet-like obedience: willingly submitting to virtual strip searches and TSA pat-downs to check their private parts, and supporting military invasions overseas.

Most Americans never question how their safety is protected by a US government that slaughters tens of thousands of foreign people who are no threat to the US.  Instead they trust the words of their leaders.  Nor do most Americans make the connection that a government that lies about money matters will also lie about safety. 

Memoirs

For example, former Bush administration Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld started hawking his recently published memoir, Known and Unknown, two months after former President George W. Bush made the rounds selling his own version of recent history: Decision Points.  Both books rationalize the preemptive US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 for possession of fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). 

Before the invasion, both men pretended that they knew Saddam Hussein had WMD and both told the world that Hussein was a danger because of his WMD.  Were they telling the truth? 

Rumsfeld’s memoir corroborates former Bush terrorism adviser Richard Clarke’s statements that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.[3][4]  In Rumsfeld’s memoir, he describes the Bush administration’s fixation on attacking Iraq:

• In July 2001, months before 9/11, Rumsfeld sent a memo to Cheney, Powell and Rice asking “that we hold a principals committee meeting to discuss Iraq.” Rumsfeld “argued that we would be better off developing a policy well ahead of events that could overtake us.”[5]
• “Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” wrote Rumsfeld, but Bush insisted on new military plans for Iraq. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’”[6]

Rumsfeld’s memoir also corroborates a 2002 CBS News story that despite Iraq playing no part in the events of 9/11, the Bush administration was targeting Iraq:

“…barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.”[7]

Selling the War

The Bush administration wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power.  They planned to invade Iraq, but they had to convince Americans that Iraq was dangerous enough to justify a preemptive invasion.[8]  They had to sell the war to the American public.

On 23 July 2002, the head of British MI6 wrote the Downing Street Memo (leaked in 2005 after the invasion) after his visit to Washington, D.C. for a US briefing on plans to invade Iraq.  The memo discussed Bush administration plans to sell an invasion of Iraq to the American public.[9]

“It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.” - Downing Street Memo, July 23, 2002

Mushroom Clouds and Mobile Labs

“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” – Then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, September 2002

For over a year before the invasion, the Bush administration made statements and leaked documents to the news media about the threat of Iraqi WMD.

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” – Then-Vice President Richard Cheney, Aug 26, 2002

In Sept 2002, Iraq was reported to be acquiring high strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium.  US experts didn’t believe the story.[10]

In 2002 the US government disseminated known forged documents stating that Iraq tried to procure Niger Yellowcake.  The CIA knew the information was false in March 2002.[11]

But George Bush publicly repeated both lies in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.” – Then-President George W. Bush in State of the Union speech January 28, 2003

Finally, on February 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell lent his credibility to the fraud planned by the Bush administration since before 9/11—convincing Americans and the world that Iraq possessed WMD and that Hussein should be removed from power.  Powell’s UN speech was the final step in the plan to get public backing for a preemptive US invasion of Iraq.

“We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.” – Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

“One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.” – Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

On March 20, 2003, the US government preemptively invaded Iraq claiming it was a threat to the US despite the following:

• The US had not been attacked by Iraq. 
• The US had been bombing Iraq since 1991 after the Gulf War. 
• The US under the auspices of the UN had embargoed Iraq since 1990.
• There was no evidence Iraq possessed WMD.

Rewriting History

After the 2003 invasion, with Hussein no longer in power, Bush’s mission was accomplished.  But the lie of WMD was still fresh in everyone’s minds.  The US-led Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was unable to find any WMD in Iraq.  Its September 2004 Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had no WMD. 

Then-President Bush established the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction to “investigate” what went wrong in the Intelligence community assessment of Iraqi WMD capabilities.  Unlikely to blame the President who created the commission, in its day-before-April Fools’ Day 2005 report, the Commission blamed the intelligence community.[12]

Today, “limited government” Tea Partiers and state worshippers alike both conveniently forget that US troops in Iraq are not fighting for “our freedoms,” but instead fight for a lie.  Eight years later:

• It’s forgotten that Iraq had no WMD and that the Bush administration lied to the American people to support its agenda of removing Hussein from power.
• The Iraq invasion is remembered as Operation Iraqi Freedom, and its purpose to liberate the Iraqi people.  We hear about elections in Iraq so people can believe the convenient fiction that the Iraq invasion was to bring democracy to Iraq.
• The Obama administration pretends that the war is over in Iraq by changing the mission name from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn.  Perhaps Americans will forget the US still has troops there.

Curveball

“The source was an eyewitness, an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities. He actually was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died from exposure to biological agents…His eyewitness account of these mobile production facilities has been corroborated by other sources.”- Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003 discussing Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi aka Curveball

On February 15, 2011, the Guardian published  an interview with Powell’s “eyewitness Iraqi chemical engineer.” Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, aka "Curveball" to US and German  intelligence services, admits that he lied about Iraqi WMD.[13]  Even Janabi’s nickname suggests intelligence agents knew he wasn’t a “straight shooter.”  Will Janabi’s admissions get the same media coverage that the Rumsfeld and Bush memoirs received?

Janabi says he has never met with a US official nor has he ever been interviewed by one.[14]  Janabi, the eyewitness whose testimony was used to justify an invasion, apparently wasn’t worth a face-to-face meeting with US officials to corroborate his testimony.  What would be the point?  The Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq, and Janabi supplied a reason. 

German intelligence didn’t consider him a reliable source, but that didn’t stop the Bush administration from using Janabi’s lies to justify invading Iraq.[15]  Janabi admits lying about Iraqi WMD capability, but claims his remarks were discredited by German intelligence well before Powell's February 5, 2003 speech to the UN.  Colin Powell doesn’t dispute this, demanding:

“…to know why it had not been made clear to him that Curveball was totally unreliable before false information was put into the key intelligence assessment, or NIE, put before Congress, into the president's state of the union address two months before the war, and into his own speech to the UN.”[16]

Betrayal of a Misplaced Trust

“And Iraq has a history of lying about everything. This is not a regime that can be trusted.” - Then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in 2002

"For people to say Bush lied, Colin Powell lied and Condi Rice lied or Cheney lied or Rumsfeld lied -- it's just not true." - Rumsfeld to Fox News' Sean Hannity February 2011[17]

The US government preemptively invaded Iraq under false pretenses—lying to the American people by pretending that Iraq had WMD.  Whatever the real reason the Bush administration wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power, it was not because he had WMDs—there were none.

What is certain is hundreds of thousands have been killed or injured and  hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent: all on a massive fraud.  Fraud is a betrayal of trust to defraud someone out of something of value.  When it invaded Iraq, the US government betrayed the foolish trust of Americans who believe that the US government exists to protect their life, liberty, and property, and that it accomplishes this by slaughtering foreign people.  By invading Iraq, the US government defrauded the American people of their blood and treasure.

Tea Partiers Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are outraged by the dishonesty of Obamacare as a symptom of a corrupt federal government.  Where is their outrage over a government that lied to preemptively invade another country?[18]

Instead of outrage as widows and orphans mourn their loved ones: Rumsfeld and Bush pitch their memoirs, neo-conservative and would-be President Sarah Palin advocates expanding the conflict to Iran, Michelle Bachmann votes to extend provisions of the Patriot Act, Obama continues to move the war to Pakistan, and US troops continue to occupy Iraq—and continue to die there.

________________________________

[1] See also the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

[2] Fiat money is not honest money.  The massive creation of fiat money in the recent bailouts of failed institutions is a fraud that robs the purchasing power of all with savings:

• Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout of 2008
• Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) bailout of 2009
• Stimulus Act of 2009
• Fed Quantitative Easing 2 (QE2) announcement November 3, 2010 of plans to purchase $600 billion in US government bonds through June 2011 to stimulate the economy.[2a]

[2a] “Fed Fires $600 Billion Stimulus Shot,” Jon Hilsenrath, WSJ, Nov 4, 2010, (Accessed at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592471354774194.html on Feb 24, 2011).

“In essence, the Fed now will print money to buy as much as $900 billion in U.S. government bonds through June—an amount roughly equal to the government's total projected borrowing needs over that period.”

[3] “Clarke's Take On Terror,” Rebecca Leung, CBSNews, Mar 21, 2004, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml on Feb 18, 2011).

From the article:

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

About Bush administration bias against Iraq:

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'
"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

[4] “Rumsfeld Files Reveal Pre-9/11 Focus on Iraq,” Sharon Weinberger, Feb 8, 2011, AOLNews, (Accessed at http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/08/donald-rumsfeld-files-reveal-pre-9-11-focus-on-iraq/ on Feb 18, 2011).

“Rumsfeld wrote in a memo to Condoleezza Rice dated July 27, 2001, just weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The same memo also suggested regime change might be a good option. ‘If Saddam's regime were ousted, we would have a much-improved position in the region and elsewhere,’ he wrote.”

[5] “Rumsfeld’s Defense of Known Decisions,” By MICHIKO KAKUTANI, NY Times, Feb 3, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/books/04book.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=all on Feb 19, 2011).

[6] “In Book, Rumsfeld Recalls Bush’s Early Iraq Focus,” By THOM SHANKER and CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY Times, Feb 2, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all on Feb 18, 2011).

[7] “Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11,” By Joel Roberts, Sept 4, 2002, CBS News, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml on Feb 18, 2011).

Rahm Emmanuel isn’t the only guy who doesn’t let a crisis go to waste:

“Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted ‘best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.’ – meaning Saddam Hussein – ‘at same time. Not only UBL’ – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
“Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
‘Go massive,’ the notes quote him as saying. ‘Sweep it all up. Things related and not.’”

[8] “An Ex-C.I.A. Chief on Iraq and the Slam Dunk That Wasn’t,” By MICHIKO KAKUTANI, NY Times, Apr 28, 2007, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/books/28kaku.html?pagewanted=all on Feb 19, 2011).

“Mr. Tenet says he doubts that W.M.D.’s were the principal cause of the United States’ decision to go to war in Iraq in the first place, that it was just ‘he public face that was put on it.’ The real reason, he suggests, stemmed from ‘the administration’s largely unarticulated view that the democratic transformation of the Middle East through regime change in Iraq would be worth the price.’”

[9] “The Secret Downing Street Memo,” May 1, 2005, Times Online, (Accessed at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/elections/article387390.ece on Feb 20,2011).

“The two broad US options were:

“(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

“(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.”

“The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

“The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

“The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.”

[10] “The Man Who Knew,” Rebecca Leung, Feb 4, 2004, CBS News, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml on Feb 19, 2011).

“Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.
‘The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,’ recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before.”

“Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.”

[11] “White House 'warned over Iraq claim',” July 9, 2003, BBC News, (Accessed at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm on Mar 3, 2011).

[12] “Unclassified Version of the Report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Mar 31, 2005, US GPO, (Accessed at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmd/index.html on Feb 27, 2011).

From the report:

“…the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.  This was a major intelligence failure. Its principal causes were the Intelligence Community's inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather, and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions, rather than good evidence.”

[13] “Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war,” Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd in Karlsruhe, guardian.co.uk, 15 Feb 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war on Feb 17, 2011).

[14] “Curveball: How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam,” Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd in Karlsruhe, guardian.co.uk, 15 Feb 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam on Feb 19, 2011).

[15] “Curveball doubts were shared with CIA, says ex-German foreign minister,” Helen Pidd, guardian.co.uk, 17 Feb 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/curveball-doubts-cia-german-foreign on Feb 19, 2011).

[16] “Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies,” Ed Pilkington in New York, Helen Pidd in Berlin and Martin Chulov, guardian.co.uk, 16 Feb 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/16/colin-powell-cia-curveball on Feb 19, 2011).

[17] “Rumsfeld Defends Iraq War Handling, Guantanamo in Fox News Interview,” Feb 08, 2011, FoxNews.com, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/08/rumsfeld-defends-iraq-war-policy-guantanamo-fox-news-interview/ on Feb 18, 2011).

[18] In 2008, Tea Party Caucus leader Michele Bachmann voted against investigating George Bush for lying about Iraq.

Newsflash from Politicians: “Violence is Not the Answer”

“We know violence isn’t the answer.  When we take up our arms, we’re talking about our votes.” – Sarah Palin

Violence is not the answer—so says Sarah Palin (R), the proud “mother of a soldier” and supporter of the “War on Terror,” while sitting against a backdrop of an American flag.[1][2]  The recent shooting of 19 people in Tucson by a disturbed individual on January 8, 2011 led to the usual political platitudes and a renewed call for more regulation of the mob.  Congressman Robert Brady (D) said:

"The president is a federal official, you can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator, or federal judge."[3] 

In the Tucson shooting, six were murdered and 13 wounded.  Survivors and first responders described blood everywhere at the scene.  The horror and loss of innocent lives shocked Americans.  It wouldn’t have shocked victims of the US government’s “War on Terror”:

• Mohammed Kinani, who opened a car door to see the brains of his nine-year-old son, Ali Kinani, fall between his feet after the Nisoor Square massacre in Baghdad, where 17 were murdered and over 20 wounded by US-employed Blackwater mercenaries in 2007.[4]
• The thousands of civilian residents of Fallujah, Iraq, who suffered through two US-led assaults in 2004 that included shelling with white phosporous.  The November 2004 assault was preceded by eight weeks of aerial bombardment, during which civilians were not allowed to leave the city.[5]
• The man in the picture which shows US smart bombs aren’t as smart as our leaders would have us think.

A Young Girl is an Innocent Victim of US bombing of Basra, Iraq 2003 During the Bush administration

Lessening Violence in the Future…Except Overseas

“So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.” -  President Obama, January 12, 2011 eulogy for Tucson victims [6]

In the first two years of the Obama (D) administration, the US government increased missile attacks in Pakistan.  According to a Pakistani group monitoring news reports of missile attacks (pdf), over 100 US missile attacks in Pakistan in 2010 targeted “militants,” but killed over 900 civilians.[7]  According to Daniel Byman, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, for every “militant” killed, “10 or so civilians also died.”[8]

While our political leaders mouth words eschewing violence, their audience—the American people—may have missed the following news stories where our political leaders’ actions indicate a different philosophy in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

• On December 17, 2010, US missiles killed 54 people in northwest Pakistan according to Pakistani officials.  “US officials do not acknowledge firing the missiles, much less comment on whom they are targeting. It is impossible to independently report on the aftermath of the attacks because outsiders are not allowed to visit the tribal regions. Human rights groups say there are significant numbers of civilian casualties in the attacks.”[9]
• On December 27, 2010, US missiles killed 25 people and injured four in Pakistan.[10]
• On January 12, 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) commented on Afghanistan: "As difficult as it may be to accept, we must prepare ourselves for more violence and more casualties in coming months.”[11]
• On January 21, 2011, “thousands of tribesmen marched in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region on Friday against the U.S. drone strikes, which they said killed innocent people.”[12]
• On January 23, 2011, US missiles killed six more people in Pakistan.[13]

The US is not at war with Pakistan, but the CIA regularly launches drone missiles to kill militants in that nation.  How does bombing Pakistan “challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future” as the President eulogized in Tucson? 

Increasing the Prospects for Future Violence

“Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.” - President Obama, West Point, December 1, 2009[14]

According to the White House, US policy in the region is supposed to keep al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, where the US government estimates there to be 50-100 al Qaeda operatives of an estimated total of 500 in the AfPak region.[15][16]  But the US government acknowledges none of this violence in Pakistan. 

In Pakistan, where there is no declared war, over 2000 are estimated to have been killed by US drones since 2006.  Wikileaks leaked US  embassy cables  showing the Pakistani government is complicit in the US drone attacks, and that the US military is targeting opponents of the Pakistani government—not al Qaeda.[17]

The current administration is using violence in a place it has no lawful right to do so, targeting people other than al Qaeda—its stated goal in the region, and is killing civilians in the process. 

Remember: Violence is Not the Answer

American politicians tell us that violence is not the answer.  Is this some new understanding they have derived from the tragedy in Tucson?

Pakistanis, Iraqis, Afghans, and Yemenis caught between domestic terrorists and US government invaders will be glad to hear the news.

__________________________________

[1] “Palin Joins Debate on Heated Speech With Words That Stir New Controversy,” By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL D. SHEAR, NY Times, Jan 12, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13palin.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24 on Jan 13, 2011).

[2] “Ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin rips President Obama on budget, war on terror at Tea Party Convention,” BY Tina Moore, DAILY NEWS, Feb 7, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/07/2010-02-07_sarah_thunders_during_tea_party.html on Jan 29, 2011).

[3] “Dem planning bill that would outlaw threats to lawmakers,” By Peter Schroeder, The Hill, 01/09/11, (Accessed at http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers on Jan 24, 2011).

What many in the mob apparently do not realize is that in our democracy, where we all have “equal” rights, some are more equal than others, as Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

[4] “Video and Transcript: EXCLUSIVE...Blackwater’s Youngest Victim: Father of 9-Year-Old Killed in Nisoor Square Gives Most Detailed Account of Massacre to Date,” (Accessed at http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/29/exclusiveblackwaters_youngest_victim_father_of_9 on Jan 29, 2011).

[5] “A name that lives in infamy,” Mike Marqusee, The Guardian, 10 November 2005, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/10/usa.iraq on Jan 29, 2011).

This describes the April 2004 seige:

“EXCLUSIVE: Al Jazeera Reporters Give Bloody First Hand Account of April ’04 U.S. Siege of Fallujah,” Democracy Now, Feb 22, 2006, (Accessed at http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/22/exclusive_al_jazeera_reporters_give_bloody on Jan 29, 2011).

[6] “Obama’s Remarks in Tucson,” NY Times, Jan 12, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/politics/13obama-text.html?pagewanted=all on Jan 13, 2011).

[7] “2010, The Year of Assassination by Drones,” Conflict Monitoring Center, Jan 2011, Islamabad, Pakistan, (Accessed at http://www.pakistankakhudahafiz.com/download/DronesAnnualReport.pdf on Jan 27, 2011).

[8] “Do Targeted Killings Work?” Brookings, Daniel L. Byman, July 14, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0714_targeted_killings_byman.aspx on Jan 27, 2011).

[9] “US missiles kill 54 in Pakistan,” By Riaz Khan, AP, Dec 17, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-missiles-kill-54-in-pakistan-2163393.html on Jan 24, 2011).

[10] “Missile strikes inside Pakistan kill 25 suspected insurgents,” By Zulfiqar Ali and Laura King, LA Times, Dec 28, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan-drone-strike-20101228,0,5698217.story on Jan 26, 2011).

[11] “US military chief Mike Mullen in Afghan warning,” Jan 13, 2011, BBC News, (Accessed at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12178913 on Jan 27, 2011).

[12] “Thousands demonstrate against U.S. drone strikes,” Xinhua, Xiong Tong, Jan 21, 2011, (Accessed at http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-01/21/c_13701881.htm on Jan 26, 2011).

[13] “Suspected US Drone Strikes Kills 6 in NW Pakistan,” Voice of America, Jan 23, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Suspected-US-Drone-Strikes-Kills-6-in-NW-Pakistan-114444804.html Jan 26, 2011).

[14] “Overview of the Afghanistan and Pakistan Annual Review,” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Dec 16, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/16/overview-afghanistan-and-pakistan-annual-review on Jan 25, 2011).

[15] “New Estimate of Strength of Al Qaeda Is Offered,” By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK MAZZETTI, NY Times, June 30, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/world/asia/01qaeda.html?_r=1 on Dec 7, 2010).

[16] “President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan,” By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS, ABC News, Dec. 2, 2009, (Accessed at http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861 on Dec 7, 2010).

[17] “US embassy cables: Pakistan backs US drone attacks on tribal areas,” Guardian, Nov 30, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/167125 on Jan 27, 2011).

The leaked cable is from Aug 23, 2008.  PM is Prime Minister Gilani, and Malik is Interior Minister Rehman Malik.  The relevant paragraph, after discussions of cooperation between the US and Pakistani governments where the US supplies upgrades to Pakistani F-16 fighter jets in return for Pakistani government protection of former US puppet Musharaff after his impeachment:

11. (C) Malik suggested we hold off alleged Predator attacks until after the Bajaur operation. The PM brushed aside Rehman,s remarks and said "I don’t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it." (Note: The strike has been front page news, but the media is reporting that the targets were nests of Arab fighters.)

Doublethink (Part 8)

“The result of this classification mania is the division of the public into two distinct groups: those who are privy to the actual conduct of American policy, but are forbidden to write or talk about it, and the uninformed public, which becomes easy prey for the official lies exposed in the WikiLeaks documents…” – David Samuels in the Atlantic

Transparency and Accountability

"Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing." –President Obama (D)[1]

In a world of Doublethink, we’re conditioned to admire the emperor’s new clothes.  In America, unlike in the children's fairy tale, if someone dares to shout that the emperor really is naked, the response isn’t laughter.  Instead, cries of treason and calls for prosecutions and executions in the name of national security fill the airwaves.

Transparency promotes accountability, but in the national security state there is no transparency.  The Obama administration, like each of its predecessors, never intended an open administration for citizens.  Public ignorance of government operations keeps our rulers in power.  Our ignorance is their strength. 

By leaking classified US government documents, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, in cooperation with various news organizations, seem to have shined some revealing light on US government operations.[2][3]  Instead of a US government-sponsored “transparency,” WikiLeaks has promoted the kind of transparency which President Obama says “provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.”

Only The Government May Spill Blood 

“Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family,” - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen[4]

According to US government estimates, one hundred thousand US troops oppose, at most, 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan.[5][6]  That’s one thousand US soldiers (not counting mercenaries) for each al Qaeda member.  Most of the killings in the war in Afghanistan are not of al Qaeda members—the purported reason for the war.  Most of the Afghan family blood spilled, for which the chairman of the JCS professes so much concern (video), is not from those 100 al Qaeda members, either. 

On April 5, 2010, via WikiLeaks, Julian Assange dared to release secret footage from 2007 of  US helicopters killing more than 12 Iraqi civilians, including children.  The cavalier attitude of the US forces shown in that video, as they treated the killings like a video game, spoke volumes of the banality of evil.  Assange has since released an additional several hundred thousand classified US documents on the Afghan war, the Iraq war, and US diplomatic cables.

Assange has enraged those who worship the state by daring to reveal US government treachery.  Wearing a chest full of decorations, high priest of the national security state and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen warned Assange not to leak secrets that could spill the blood of soldiers who willingly participate in the war.  The admiral thinks only the state has the right to sacrifice individuals on the altar of the state.

Many Americans are offended by Assange—he upsets their worship of the state as god.  The US government hates Assange—his revelations end the ignorance that is its strength.

Naked Apes

"Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die of lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain..." – Rush Limbaugh, “limited-government” advocate[7]

Like the scene in “2001 A Space Odyssey” (4:30 into this video) where a collection of apes mimic their leader by clubbing an already fallen, harmless opponent, others joined in, bashing Assange:

• Rush Limbaugh, a pretend, limited-government conservative, called Assange names before calling for his assassination.  Limbaugh described Assange as a sissy: “No, I just don't like the guy in general principles.  I don't like the name. I don't like the way he looks. I don't like the way he sounds. He's a sissy; he's a waif, purely and simply an Internet creation.”  Limbaugh then hoped for Assange’s life to be wrecked: “…I asked them two questions: ‘Is there a way that it can be arranged that the identity of Julian Assange could be stolen and then with that identity we wreck his life?’"
• Nouvelle, pretend,  limited-government conservative Sarah Palin asked “Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?”[8]
• Did pretend, limited-government conservative Senator Jon Kyl (R) suggest making an ex post facto law to target Assange?  According to Kyl: "Ben Cardin and I are going to be working on some legislation I think that would enable us to more broadly be able to charge people even if they’re not handing over information to an enemy, for example."
• Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) called Assange a “high-tech terrorist.”
• Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) wants Assange prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, ignoring the First Amendment to the US Constitution as she has ignored the rest of the Constitution throughout her career.
• Referring to a US government legal creation to avoid the Geneva conventions, neo-conservative Newt Gingrich said Assange “should be treated as an enemy combatant.”

Former candidate for the R-presidential nomination, Mike Huckabee, clamored for the blood of the source of the leaks (video).

Avert Your Gaze as the Naked Emperor Passes

“Because they don't lie in diplomatic cables. The odds are that what we're getting here is the raw truth.” – Rush Limbaugh while decrying “evil Julian Assange” who dared give Americans the raw truth.

The US government, embarrassed by the leaks, has strong-armed the Domain Name Server for WikiLeaks, Amazon, and Paypal in an effort to cut off the funding and operation of WikiLeaks (see list of WikiLeaks mirrors).  The US government warned federal employees not to read WikiLeaks.[9]  Columbia University warned students that they endanger future job prospects if they download the publicly available material.[10]  Raytheon, as did other military contractors, warned employees:

"U.S. Government agencies are releasing guidance to contractors. Reviewing information on WikiLeaks or subsequent disclosures is strictly prohibited. As a contractor to the Federal Government, this means ... personnel are prohibited from accessing WikiLeaks whether on company-issued or on personal equipment."[11]

The emperor has commanded that people must pretend that the emperor’s new clothes are marvelous, when all the world should know: “The emperor has no clothes.”

President Obama (D) and his open administration (Doublethink translation—he lied to you, he didn’t close Guantanamo, he didn’t end the war in Iraq, and he doesn’t have an open administration) threaten to prosecute Assange:

“Published reports suggest that a joint Justice Department-Pentagon team of investigators is exploring the possibility of charging Assange under the Espionage Act, which could lead to decades in jail. "This is not saber-rattling," said Attorney General Eric Holder, commenting on the possibility that Assange will be prosecuted by the government.”[12]

The US government pressured other countries to expel Assange:

“…American ambassador to Switzerland, Donald S. Beyer Jr., responded to signs that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks might seek refuge in that country, warning in the weekly magazine NZZ am Sonntag that the Swiss ‘should very carefully consider whether to provide shelter to someone who is on the run from the law.’”[13][14]

On December 7, 2010, Assange appeared before a magistrate in London and faced extradition to Sweden for rape charges.  He is being held without bail.  According to Swedish authorities, the charges had nothing to do with the WikiLeaks website.[15][16]

On the same day Assange was jailed, the US Department of State released a press statement about hosting a planned World Press Freedom Day event May 1-3, 2011 in Washington, D.C.:

“We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.”[17]

The US government mocks us by pretending to support the free flow of information while the government:

• Forces businesses to refuse service to those who disagree with it
• Warns employees and contractors not to read the leaked information on company or personal equipment
• Threatens students not to read the leaked information at the price of future job prospects
• Threatens nations harboring individuals who reveal the dirty laundry of the US government
• Threatens the individuals who reveal classified information—information classified only because it embarrasses the US government.

Classified Documents No Longer Hidden From Our Prying Eyes

“The prying eyes that caused Dulles most concern belonged not to the president, Congress, or the press—all of whom, if for different reasons, tended to defer to the CIA—but to the American people.” – Andrew Bacevich describes the formation of the CIA–one-third of the US national security state[18]

Assange has not given in to the threats of prosecution or assassination.[19]  WikiLeaks distributed an encrypted “insurance file”  over the internet containing more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables.[20]  In a news conference, Assange warned that if he is imprisoned or killed, “the key parts will be released automatically.”[21]

In a world of Doublethink, our ignorance is the government’s strength.  Releasing information to end that ignorance gives power back to the people.

Why else would Assange be such a danger to the state?

________________________________________

[1] “Transparency and Open Government,” Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ on Dec 7, 2010).

[2] “Respected media outlets collaborate with WikiLeaks,” AP News, Dec 3, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0Vruimmvy8loGklsz34QyGDKMDA?docId=120c7bf5d3a34dbaadf1280dace2e456 on Dec 7, 2010).

[3] “WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign',” By Howard Chua-Eoan, Time, Nov. 30, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2033771,00.html on Dec 7, 2010).

[4] “Gates Calls on FBI to Join Leak Investigation,” By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service, July 29, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?ID=341 on Dec 7, 2010).

[5] “New Estimate of Strength of Al Qaeda Is Offered,” By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK MAZZETTI, NY Times, June 30, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/world/asia/01qaeda.html?_r=1 on Dec 7, 2010).

[6] “President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan,” By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS, ABC News, Dec. 2, 2009, (Accessed at http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861 on Dec 7, 2010).

[7] “Rush Analyzes the WikiLeaks Waif,” Nov 29, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112910/content/01125107.guest.html on Dec 7, 2010).

[8] “Exclusive: Sarah Palin Under Cyber-Attack from Wikileaks Supporters in 'Operation Payback'*,” Jake Tapper, ABC News, Dec 8, 2010, (Accessed at http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/12/exclusive-palin-under-cyber-attack-from-wikileaks-supporters-in-operation-payback.html on Dec 9, 2010).

“’No wonder others are keeping silent about Assange's antics,’ Palin emailed ABC News. ‘This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts.’”

Palin is a mistress of Doublethink.  She cries about her First Amendment rights, but had no problem seeing them denied to Australian Assange.

[9] “Don’t Look, Don’t Read: Government Warns Its Workers Away From WikiLeaks Documents,” By ERIC LIPTON, NY Times, December 4, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/world/05restrict.html?ref=world on Dec 6, 2010).

[10] “Columbia students told job prospects harmed if they access WikiLeaks cables,” Ewen MacAskill, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2010, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/columbia-students-wikileaks-cables on Dec 6, 2010).

[11] “Raytheon forbids employees to access WikiLeaks website,” By Muhammed El-Hasan, Daily Breeze, 12/03/2010, (Accessed at http://www.dailybreeze.com/latestnews/ci_16762048?source=email on Dec 6, 2010).

[12] “The Shameful Attacks on Julian Assange,” Dec 3 2010, David Samuels, The Atlantic, (Accessed at http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/12/the-shameful-attacks-on-julian-assange/67440/ on Dec 6, 2010).

If Obama has an open administration, it is only due to Assange:

“For his part, Assange has not been shy about expressing his contempt for the failure of traditional reporting to inform the public, and his belief in the utility of his own methods. ‘How is it that a team of five people has managed to release to the public more suppressed information, at that level, than the rest of the world press combined?’ he told The Sydney Morning Herald. ‘It's disgraceful.’"

[13] “Hundreds of WikiLeaks Mirror Sites Appear,” By RAVI SOMAIYA, NY Times, December 5, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/world/europe/06wiki.html?hp on Dec 5, 2010).

[14] “Homeland Security seizes domain names,” By Sara Jerome, The Hill, 11/26/10, (Accessed at http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130763-homeland-security-dept-seizes-domain-names- on Dec 7, 2010).

Each time the government arrogates power to protect people from some abuse, they also gain power to inflict their own abuse.  This is part of Freedom is Slavery double-thinking.

[15] “The Wikileaks sex files: How two one-night stands sparked a worldwide hunt for Julian Assange,” By Richard Pendlebury, 7th December 2010, Daily Mail, (Accessed at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html?ito=feeds-newsxml on Dec 7, 2010).

[16] “Assange Vows To Fight On After Bail Refusal,” Alison Chung and Richard Williams, Sky News Online, Dec 07, 2010, (Accessed at http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Julian-Assange-WikiLeaks-Founder-Meets-Police-In-Britain-Over-Sexual-Assault-Claims-In-Sweden/Article/201012115849036?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15849036_Julian_Assange%3A_WikiLeaks_Founder_Meets_Police_In_Britain_Over_Sexual_Assault_Claims_In_Sweden on Dec 7, 2010).

[17] “U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011,” US Department of State Press Statement, Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs, Washington, DC, Dec 7, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm on Dec 7, 2010).

[18] Washington Rules, Andrew Bacevich, Holt and Company, NY, NY, 2010, p. 42.

[19] “WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 'will release poison pill of damaging secrets if killed or arrested',” By Ian Drury, 6th December 2010, (Accessed at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335888/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-release-damaging-secrets-killed-arrested.html on Dec 7, 2010).

[20] “WikiLeaks Ready to Release Giant 'Insurance' File if Shut Down,” Foxnews, Dec 05, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/ on Dec 7, 2010).

[21] “WikiLeaks Founder Warns About More Dispatches,” By SCOTT SHANE, NY Times, Dec 6, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/world/europe/07assange.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a22 on Dec 7, 2010).

Trading Freedom for Security

“The feudal system was one of hierarchy in which nobles, who were sovereign over the most valuable commodity of that time—land—ruled over peasants (serfs) who were tied permanently to the land.” – Feudalism at Encyclopedia.com

“Serfdom was the enforced labour of serfs on the fields of landowners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.” – Serfdom at Wikipedia

Serfs in the Middle Ages traded freedom for security.  In return for protection by the landlord, a serf worked a parcel of land and was legally bound to the land.  One can understand why serfs centuries ago made that trade—they were born into servitude and didn’t have a tradition of liberty as we do in the US.  What’s difficult to understand is why today you can see many Americans making the same trade.

"If it’s in the interest of safety, it’s alright." - Air traveler the day before Thanksgiving.

Different Rules for Serfs and Their Rulers

“With respect to the TSA, let me, first of all, make a confession. I don't go through security checks to get on planes these days, so I haven't personally experienced some of the procedures that have been put in place by TSA.”  - President Obama speaking at a NATO summit[1]

TSA procedures aren’t intended for our rulers—they’re a different class of people.  At a NATO summit, President Obama acknowledged that he has not had to be virtually strip-searched or groped by TSA goons.  But the President wants us to understand that it’s important that we be groped or virtually strip-searched in the “land of the free.”  According to Obama, it’s for our own good.

Our rulers travel in style and would not allow themselves to be treated as serfs.  When asked if she would submit to a pat-down, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (D) replied:

“Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?”[2]

John Boehner (R), soon-t0-be second in the line of succession to the Presidency, pretends to be a man of the people by flying commercial airlines, yet he bypasses security screens that we cannot.[3]  The TSA identified other rulers exempt from airport screening:

“Cabinet secretaries, top congressional leaders and an exclusive group of senior U.S. officials are exempt from toughened new airport screening procedures when they fly commercially with government-approved federal security details.”[4]

Gropes and peeping under clothing at airports are for the little people.  They’re for:

• 61-year old Thomas Sawyer, a retired special education teacher and bladder cancer survivor, who wears a urostomy bag, and was humiliated and covered in urine after his TSA pat down.[5]
• Cathy Bossi, a breast cancer survivor, forced to remove her prosthetic breast and show it to a TSA screener after the screener felt her prosthetic breast.[6]
• The little boy in this video, who is frisked by a TSA agent.
• Grand Rapids air traveler Ella Swift, reduced to tears when a TSA screener ran a hand up her crotch because she was wearing a skirt.[7]
• Business traveler Penny Moroney, who considered the patting of her genitals by a TSA screener to be a sexual assault.[8]
• A 23-year old woman from Amarillo, Texas who had her top pulled down by TSA agent to expose her breasts in 2008.[9]
• Menstruating women with suspicious material lining their panties (aka panty liners) necessitating additional groping.[10]

TSA screeners in the “land of the free” poke and prod Americans as if they were examining slaves at a slave auction.[11]

Why do “free” Americans let them?

Serfdom Not Security

“But at this point, TSA, in consultation with our counterterrorism experts, have indicated to me that the procedures that they've been putting in place are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the Christmas Day bombing.” - President Obama[12]

Obama and his family won’t go through the sexual assaults or privacy invasions that you and your family must endure.  Our constitutional law professor President tells us we must tolerate these invasions of our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our persons while he jets off in Air Force One to yet another meeting of the G8 or a global warming conference, or the royal family takes a vacation trip to India.[13]

Pilots and flight attendants complained about being groped at airports and the TSA backed down.  Yet even as the federal government makes exceptions, the TSA still assumes it can violate our Fourth Amendment rights with impunity.  Why does that assumption go unchallenged? 

Despite what the President wants us to think, being treated like slaves will not keep us safe.  Acting like serfs brings serfdom, not security.

____________________________

[1] “Text of President Obama,” AP, (Accessed at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama_summit_text_1 on Nov 21, 2010).

[2] “'I'd avoid them if I could': Hillary Clinton joins row over 'intimate' TSA airport pat-downs,” By Daily Mail Reporter, 22nd November 2010, (Accessed at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331781/Hillary-Clinton-joins-intimate-TSA-pat-downs-row-Id-avoid-I-could.html on Nov 29, 2010).

[3] “No Security Pat-Downs for Boehner,” By Jeff Zelany, Nov 19, 2010, NY Times, (Accessed at http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/no-security-pat-downs-for-boehner/?partner=rss&emc=rss on Nov 24, 2010).

[4] “TSA: Some gov't officials to skip airport security,” By EILEEN SULLIVAN, AP News, Nov 23, 2010, (Accessed at http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101124/D9JM7I381.html on Nov 28, 2010).

[5] “TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine,” By Harriet Baskas, MSNBC.com, 11/20/2010, (Accessed at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news on Nov 21, 2010).

[6] “Cancer surviving flight attendant forced to remove prosthetic breast during pat-down,” By Molly Grantham, Nov 19, 2010, WBTV, (Accessed at http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628 on Nov 21, 2010).

[7] “Enhanced pat down leaves Grand Rapids airline passenger in tears,” by Phil Dawson and Christa Graban, 11/19/2010, Wzzm13.com, (Accessed at http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_story.aspx?storyid=140233&catid=14 on Nov 21, 2010).

[8] “Woman says her Lambert security screening was sexual assault,” kmov.com, Nov 18, 2010, (Accessed at  http://www.kmov.com/news/mobile/Woman-says-her-Lambert-security-screening-was-sexual-assault--109114934.html on Nov 21, 2010).

[9] “Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed',” The Australian, November 18, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/travel/news/airport-staff-exposed-womans-breasts-laughed/story-e6frg8ro-1225955345734 on Nov 21, 2010).

[10] “Sanitary Towel Prompts TSA To Grope Sexual Assault Victim,” Steve Watson, Prisonplanet.com, Nov 25th, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.prisonplanet.com/sanitary-towel-prompts-tsa-to-grope-sexual-assault-victim.html on Nov 28, 2010).

[11] This gives more testimony to Jeffrey Rogers Hummel’s thesis in Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men.

[12] Text Of President Obama, Ibid.

[13] “Bomb-proof tunnel with air conditioning: Obama's security go to extraordinary measures for his tour of the Gandhi museum,” Daily Mail, Nov 6, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326962/Obamas-India-visit-security-erect-bomb-proof-tunnel-Gandhi-museum.html on Nov 21, 2010).

What?  The Obamas weren’t vacationing in India?  Was the President helping outsource more jobs there instead?

Doublethink (Part 7)

“For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 2 Chapter 9, p. 156-7 by George Orwell.[1]

Ignorance is Strength

Applied to innovation, “Ignorance is Strength” might describe a physicist working relentlessly to prove the existence of some marvel previously considered impossible.  If you’re the physicist, your “ignorance” is a good thing for you, your refusal to accept conventional wisdom is your strength. 

Applied to the state, “Ignorance is Strength” means the strength of the rulers depends upon the ignorance of their subjects.  In that case, unless you’re a ruler, your ignorance hurts you.

Our rulers want us to believe that democracy is a special form of government where they work for us.  Our rulers would have us all believe that in a democracy the will of the people—whatever that is—prevails.  That belief is the “ignorance” part.

“This Time It’s Different…No Really, We Mean It”

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and House Republican Leader John Boehner

"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles." – House Minority Leader and Soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner (R), Oct. 27, 2010 on the Sean Hannity show (audio)

“The people have spoken” once again after the November 2, 2010 elections.  Rs picked up at least 60 seats in the US House and six in the US Senate.  Those elected and the media tout this overwhelming victory for Rs a result of voter backlash against D-supported growth of the federal government that permeates our lives.

Born two summers ago of voter outrage over healthcare “re-form,” the tea party movement grew after Ds forced Obamacare down the throats of voters last year.  The tea party made Obamacare and the failure of the $787 billion Recovery Act of 2009 the main issues of this election.  Tea party voters believe they can limit the growth of the federal government by forcing it to follow the US Constitution.

Playing to the voter anger and pro-Constitution sentiment reflected by the tea party movement, the opposition party in Congress released “A Pledge to America” on September 23, 2010.[2]  Full of pretty pictures and emotional paeans to liberty, family values, and national defense, the R-pledge (pdf) also pays lip service to the Constitution:

“We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” – Page 3 of “A Pledge to America”

The party that in the last decade gave America two undeclared wars, the TSA, a $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug bill, and the $700 billion TARP banker bailout finally pledges to honor the Constitution.  Finally.  Do you believe it?

Prepare to get milked

Even a casual study of recent history shows that democracy simply means that the cows get to pick who milks them.  The state makes sure that any bulls in the herd supply prairie oysters instead of milk.

Angry voters this election opposed socialist Obamacare, but apparently forgot that Rs sponsored the socialist $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug bill and the $700 billion TARP banker bailout.  John Boehner (R) just won re-election this year in Ohio with 66% of the vote.  Ohio voters must have forgotten that Boehner voted aye for the $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug bill and voted yea for the $700 billion TARP bailout (video) during the Bush (R) administration.  They must have forgotten that John Boehner, the same guy they just re-elected, voted yea for the Bush-sponsored creation of the TSA—the monstrosity that peers under clothes and gropes the crotches of “free Americans” to keep them safe.

Now Boehner, who will soon be Speaker of the House, says Rs “will not compromise” on their principles:

“Our plan stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government; economic freedom; lower taxes; fiscal responsibility; protecting life, American values, and the Constitution; and providing for a robust national defense.” – Page 5 of “A Pledge to America”

Where were Boehner’s “limited government principles” in 2008?  Or did he just grow them?

Soon-to-be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R) of Virginia was re-elected with 59% of the vote.  If this election was a repudiation of big government, how did Cantor, who voted for the $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, for the $700 billion TARP banker bailout of 2008, and for the creation of the TSA monstrosity, get re-elected? 

After the election, TARP-supporter and “limited government advocate” Cantor unveiled 22 pages of hypocrisy (pdf) in his campaign to become the House R-majority leader:

“I don’t think any of us ran for Congress with the idea that we could finally provide a subsidy to this industry or that, or to this community or that. Or that we would vote to continue the same federal programs and agencies that are failing our citizens and bankrupting our children and grandchildren.”[3]

One of the writers of “A Pledge to America,” congressman Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin, ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, knows federal government spending is unsustainable.[4]  Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” advocates “re-form” of Social Security and Medicare.  Days before the 2010 election, Ryan argued for changes to Social Security and Medicare: 

“The government's own experts are telling us that our health and retirement security programs -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- are on a path to bankruptcy unless we take action soon. In addition to overwhelming the entire federal budget, the collapse of these programs will result in painful cuts for seniors and society's most vulnerable.” – Paul Ryan, Oct 16, 2010

Yet during the Bush (R) administration Ryan voted aye for the $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug bill, moving Medicare that much more toward the bankruptcy he is now so alarmed about.  Ryan himself contributed to “overwhelming the entire federal budget” when he voted for the $700 billion TARP banker bailout.  Ryan also proved he is no friend of the Constitution when he voted for the creation of the TSA monstrosity which violates the Fourth Amendment rights of all travelers to be “secure in their persons…against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

In this election of voter outrage, Ryan was re-elected this year by a wide margin with 68% of the vote.

Rs touted this election as a repudiation of big government.  If that is so, how did these three leading members of the opposition party, who supported and voted for big government when an R was President, get re-elected in 2010?

The cows have made their choices.

End the Government Takeover of Healthcare

“We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care with common sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.” – Page 6 of “A Pledge to America”

In 1965 the federal government started its takeover of healthcare with the Social Security Act of 1965 under LBJ (D).  By 2003 both Rs and Ds saw government socialized healthcare as a right for Americans: the Bush (R) administration pushed legislation to pay for Medicare Prescription Drugs that will cost an estimated $1.2 trillion through 2016.[5]

The federal government has unfunded liabilities of $200 trillion.[6]  Most of those liabilities are for Medicare and Social Security.  Nowhere in their Pledge to America (pdf) do Rs mention ending  Medicare.[7]  Rs pretend they’re the party of fiscal responsibility and that they follow the Constitution, yet they lie to themselves and the American people just as easily as the Ds.

End TARP Once And For All

“Americans are rightly outraged at the bailouts of businesses and entities that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior. We will cancel the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a move that would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.” – Page 21 of “A Pledge to America”

Like exterminators releasing pests in a home to drum up business, the Rs who voted for TARP now pledge to cancel it.

This year’s crop of the fruits of democracy yields legislators who supported the $152 billion Bush-Economic Stimulus Act and the $700 billion TARP banker bailout in 2008, but not Obama’s $787 billion Stimulus bill in 2009; who support socialist Medicare, which is bankrupting the federal government, but not socialist Obamacare, which will bankrupt the federal government.  All of these federal government programs encroach on your freedom, but double-thinking voters pretend there’s a difference between the programs.  That same double-thinking lets voters pretend that this time a difference exists between the Rs or Ds who create the programs.  (Much like double-thinking Obama supporters pretended they were voting for a change from warmonger George W. Bush.)

This election was different—at least that’s what they tell you.  The Tea Party is spontaneous they say—or it was until it was preempted by politicians.  The people are angry and will change things they say—deep down you should know better.  Rs or Ds in the US, black cats or white cats in Canada (see six minute Mouseland video [8]), there’s no real difference.

Your ignorance is their strength.  Moo.

_______________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, pp. 156-7.

[2] “House Republicans Unveil 'Pledge to America,' Call for Tax and Spending Cuts,” September 23, 2010, FoxNews.com, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/23/house-republicans-unveil-pledge-america-tax-spending-cuts/ on Nov. 2, 2010).

Read a Pledge to America (pdf) and remember Rs voted for the bailout (HR 1424) during the Bush (R) administration.

[3] “Eric Cantor lays out 22-page game plan,” By Jake Sherman, 11/3/10, (Accessed at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44641.html on Nov. 4, 2010).

Another snippet from Cantor’s plan:

“We came to Washington to eliminate the deficit, to tear down barriers to job creation, and to reform a government that has grown out of touch with the governed.”

[4] “Republicans unveil Pledge to America, but where was Paul Ryan?” By Linda Feldmann, Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/2010/0923/Republicans-unveil-Pledge-to-America-but-where-was-Paul-Ryan on Nov. 2, 2010).

[5] “Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion,” By Ceci Connolly and Mike Allen, Washington Post, Feb 9, 2005, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html on Nov 9, 2010).

[6] “U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know It,” By Laurence Kotlikoff, Aug 10, 2010, Bloomberg Opinion, (Accessed at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html on Nov 9, 2010).

[7] From Page 6 of “A Pledge to America”:

“Of course, Americans remember that President Obama argued his government takeover of health care was the single most important thing we could do to address our growing debt crisis. This notion has since been thoroughly discredited: we now know the new health care law will mean more financial pain for seniors, families, and the
federal government. We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care with common
sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs. We will enact real medical liability reform; allow Americans to purchase health coverage across state lines; empower small businesses with greater purchasing power; and create new incentives to save for future health needs. We will protect the doctor-patient relationship, and
ensure that those with pre-existing conditions gain access to the coverage they need. We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.”

[8] In the video, the lone mouse on the pipe is really a cat in a mouse suit.