Will Obama Opt for War on Iran?

Will Obama Opt for War on Iran?

Sunday, February 7, 2010 10:45 AM
From: “Stephen Sniegoski” 

To: “Stephen Sniegoski”

Friends,
Two articles, one by anti-war conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan and the other by neoconservative Daniel Pipes,  deal with the issue of Obama moving toward war on Iran for political reasons. In “Will Obama Play the War Card?,” Patrick  Buchanan points out that  this option is certainly a political temptation for Obama especially since Congress is pushing him in that direction.  Buchanan cites Congress’ effort to impose very stiff sanctions on refined petroleum exports to  Iran as a move toward war.

[On January 28, 2010, the U.S. Senate passed by voice vote the “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2009” (S. 2799).  The bill now goes to conference committee to be reconciled with a similar bill from the House of Representatives,  the “Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act” (H.R. 2194), which passed the House in December 2009. Because of the similarity of the two bills and the strong bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress, a final bill incorporating the essence of the Senate bill is almost guaranteed to be passed by both houses of Congress. The Obama administration has expressed objections, but  there is no indication that Obama would dare to veto the final bill—and given the overwhelming congressional support, any presidential veto could be easily over-ridden.]
“Senate bill 2799,” Buchanan writes,  “would punish any company exporting gasoline to Iran. Though swimming in oil, Iran has a limited refining capacity and must import 40 percent of the gas to operate its cars and trucks and heat its homes.” He argues that “cutting off a country’s oil or gas is a proven path to war.”  And he cites the examples of Japan attacking the US in 1941  after the US embargo on oil supplies and Israel attacking Egypt in 1967 after Nasser threatened to close the Straits of Tiran through which Israel received 95 percent of its oil.  While  the implementation of the current sanctions would  not cause Iran to attack the United States, it certainly would increase tensions and help to lead to war. Iran will certainly try to get around the sanctions and any American naval  efforts to prevent gasoline from entering Iran  could precipitate war.

 “The Senate,” Buchanan writes,  “is trying to force Obama’s hand, box him in, restrict his freedom of action, by making him impose sanctions that would cut off the negotiating track and put us on a track to war.”

Buchanan also hits the mark by pointing out that “U.S. interests would seem to dictate supporting those elements in Iran who wish to be rid of the regime and re-engage the West. But if that is our goal, the Senate bill, and a House version that passed 412 to 12, seem almost diabolically perverse.”  The sanctions obviously will tend to unify the country behind the regime.  Of course, the neocon/Israel goal is not to bring in the reformers—who also tend to support the Palestine resistance and seek to develop nuclear power—but to destabilize the country by war.  This can best be achieved by keeping the demonized Ahmadinejad in power.

In the second article, “How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran,” neocon Daniel Pipes naturally encourages Obama to opt for war. “He [Obama] needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.

“Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity.”

Pipes candidly admits that the imposition of “crippling” sanctions on Iran would not contribute to a peaceful settlement but would  help to put the United States “on an escalator to confrontation that could lead straight to war.”

Pipes correctly observes that “Obama’s attempts to ‘reset’ his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics.”  There are no simply no easy answers for the economic problems that beset America.

Now Pipes is obviously not out to help Obama,  but what he says about the political benefits of war are certainly true.  If  Republican Party leaders were half-way intelligent,  they would realize that pushing the country to war is not in their political interest.  But the Republican Party is not called the “stupid party” for nothing, and it is in the thrall of the neoconservatives—at least indirectly, since the neocons control Murdoch’s Fox News and strongly influence the popular right-wing radio broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh.  Republicans already did irreparable damage to their party by giving whole-hearted support for the war on Iraq, so the Republicans are quite likely to snatch defeat from the hands of victory. 

Pipes presents  something on the order of  the spurious claim of  Saddam’s  super dangerous WMD to justify the need for a US bombing attack on Iran. “Eventually, they [Iran] could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the United States, utterly devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to American’s friends and enemies.”   Of course, an Iranian electromagnetic pulse attack is highly theoretical.  A high altitude explosion would cause damage to electronic communication devices (a nuclear atmospheric test explosion 800 miles from Hawaii in 1962 knocked out a small percentage of the island’s civilian electronic devices) but that it would disrupt all communications devices to the point of preventing a devastating counter strike is highly questionable.   Perhaps China, Russia, and the US possess the capability of developing a weapon that could deliver a knockout blow that would prevent nuclear retaliation (though tests to determine this with certitude would seem almost impossible to conduct), but the likelihood that Iran could do this or would dare to take such a risk would seem very  remote compared to threats from other countries against the US that would increase every time the US made an unprovoked attack on another country—the more the US engages in allegedly preventive wars, the more likely it is for a fearful nuclear power to launch a preventive war against the US.   

Despite the fantasy aspect of an Iranian electromagnetic pulse threat,  it is reasonable to believe that such  a claim, if publicized widely,  could resonate with a substantial proportion of the American public and help to cause the US to launch a preventive war.  In fact, this would seem to be the element that is currently lacking in the existing war propaganda —the American people have not yet been made to believe that Iran really threatens  the US homeland.   

A previous essay of mine provides similar arguments:   

“Strengthening US Defenses in the Gulf as a Step Toward War”

http://tinyurl.com/yhymvsd

Transparent Cabal Website:

http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/

Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:

http://tiny.cc/zNV06

Best,

Stephen Sniegoski

__________________________________________________________________

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35508&s=rcme

Human Events

Will Obama Play the War Card?

by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted 02/05/2010 ET

Updated 02/05/2010 ET

Republicans already counting the seats they will pick up this fall should keep in mind Obama has a big card yet to play.

Should the president declare he has gone the last mile for a negotiated end to Iran’s nuclear program and impose the “crippling” sanctions he promised in 2008, America would be on an escalator to confrontation that could lead straight to war.

And should war come, that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate.

Harry Reid is surely aware a U.S. clash with Iran, with him at the president’s side, could assure his re-election. Last week, Reid whistled through the Senate, by voice vote, a bill to put us on that escalator.

Senate bill 2799 would punish any company exporting gasoline to Iran. Though swimming in oil, Iran has a limited refining capacity and must import 40 percent of the gas to operate its cars and trucks and heat its homes.

And cutting off a country’s oil or gas is a proven path to war.

In 1941, the United States froze Japan’s assets, denying her the funds to pay for the U.S. oil on which she relied, forcing Tokyo either to retreat from her empire or seize the only oil in reach, in the Dutch East Indies.

The only force able to interfere with a Japanese drive into the East Indies? The U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.

Egypt’s Gamel Abdel Nasser in 1967 threatened to close the Straits of Tiran between the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba to ships going to the Israeli port of Elath. That would have cut off 95 percent of Israel’s oil.

Israel response: a pre-emptive war that destroyed Egypt’s air force and put Israeli troops at Sharm el-Sheikh on the Straits of Tiran.

Were Reid and colleagues seeking to strengthen Obama’s negotiating hand?

The opposite is true. The Senate is trying to force Obama’s hand, box him in, restrict his freedom of action, by making him impose sanctions that would cut off the negotiating track and put us on a track to war — a war to deny Iran weapons that the U.S. Intelligence community said in December 2007 Iran gave up trying to acquire in 2003.

Sound familiar?

Republican leader Mitch McConnell has made clear the Senate is seizing control of the Iran portfolio. “If the Obama administration will not take action against this regime, then Congress must.”

U.S. interests would seem to dictate supporting those elements in Iran who wish to be rid of the regime and re-engage the West. But if that is our goal, the Senate bill, and a House version that passed 412 to 12, seem almost diabolically perverse.

For a cutoff in gas would hammer Iran’s middle class. The Revolutionary Guard and Basij militia on their motorbikes would get all they need. Thus the leaders of the Green Movement who have stood up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah oppose sanctions that inflict suffering on their own people.

Cutting off gas to Iran would cause many deaths. And the families of the sick, the old, the weak, the women and the children who die are unlikely to feel gratitude toward those who killed them.

And despite the hysteria about Iran’s imminent testing of a bomb, the U.S. intelligence community still has not changed its finding that Tehran is not seeking a bomb.

The low-enriched uranium at Natanz, enough for one test, has neither been moved nor enriched to weapons grade. Ahmadinejad this week offered to take the West’s deal and trade it for fuel for its reactor. Iran’s known nuclear facilities are under U.N. watch. The number of centrifuges operating at Natanz has fallen below 4,000. There is speculation they are breaking down or have been sabotaged.

And if Iran is hell-bent on a bomb, why has Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair not revised the 2007 finding and given us the hard evidence?

U.S. anti-missile ships are moving into the Gulf. Anti-missile batteries are being deployed on the Arab shore. Yet, Gen. David Petraeus warned yesterday that a strike on Iran could stir nationalist sentiment behind the regime.

Nevertheless, the war drums have again begun to beat.

Daniel Pipes in a National Review Online piece featured by the Jerusalem Post — “How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran” — urges Obama to make a “dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a lightweight, bumbling ideologue” by ordering the U.S. military to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Citing six polls, Pipes says Americans support an attack today and will “presumably rally around the flag” when the bombs fall.

Will Obama cynically yield to temptation, play the war card and make “conservatives swoon,” in Pipes’ phrase, to save himself and his party? We shall see.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, “The Death of the West,”, “The Great Betrayal,” “A Republic, Not an Empire” and “Where the Right Went Wrong.”

———————————————————————————-

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE           www.nationalreview.

http://article.nationalreview.com/423580/how-to-save-the-obama-presidency-bomb-iran/daniel-pipes?page=1

 Also:

http://www.danielpipes.org/7921/bomb-iran-save-obama-presidency

Daniel Pipes

February 2, 2010 12:00 A.M.

How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran

Circumstances are propitious, and the American people would support it.

I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed, whose goals I fear, and whose policies I work against. But here is an idea for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step that protects the United States and its allies.

If Obama’s personality, identity, and celebrity captivated a majority of the American electorate in 2008, those qualities proved ruefully deficient for governing in 2009. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in foreign-policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large (relations with China and Japan). His counterterrorism record barely passes the laugh test.

This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls and the loss of three major by-elections, culminating two weeks ago in an astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama’s attempts to “reset” his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just one of many players.

He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.

Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity.

Circumstances are propitious. First, U.S. intelligence agencies have reversed their preposterous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the one that claimed with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program.” No one other than the Iranian rulers and their agents denies that the regime is rushing headlong to build a large nuclear arsenal.

Second, if the apocalyptic-minded leaders in Tehran get the Bomb, they render the Middle East yet more volatile and dangerous. They might deploy these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and destruction. Eventually, they could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the United States, utterly devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to American’s friends and enemies.

Third, polling shows longstanding American support for an attack on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure:

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, January 2006: 57 percent of Americans favor military intervention if Tehran pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

Zogby International, October 2007: 52 percent of likely voters support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon; 29 percent oppose such a step.

McLaughlin & Associates, May 2009: When asked whether they would support “using the [U.S.] military to attack and destroy the facilities in Iran which are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon,” 58 percent of 600 likely voters supported the use of force and 30 percent opposed it.

Fox News, September 2009: When asked “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?” 61 percent of 900 registered voters supported military action and 28 opposed it.

Pew Research Center, October 2009: When asked which is more important, “to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action,” or “to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons,” 61 percent of 1,500 respondents favored the first reply and 24 percent the second.

Not only does a strong majority — 57, 52, 58, 61, and 61 percent in these five polls — already favor using force, but after a strike Americans will presumably rally around the flag, sending that number much higher.

Fourth, if the U.S.limited its strike to taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities and did not attempt any regime change, it would require few “boots on the ground” and entail relatively few casualties, making an attack more politically palatable.

Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush’s meandering early months, a strike on Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama’s feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene. It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, and make the netroots squeal, independents reconsider, and conservatives swoon.

But the chance to do good and do well is fleeting. As the Iranians improve their defenses and approach weaponization, the window of opportunity is closing. The time to act is now, or, on Obama’s watch, the world will soon become a much more dangerous place.

— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University

15 Responses to “Will Obama Opt for War on Iran?”

  • Debbie Menon says:

    How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran
    -Daniel Pipes

    I differ with Pipes on many points here, and for many reasons. But, one of the most obvious is his reasoning here, that the bombing Iran will “save” the Obama Presidency. There are many things which may sink or save the Obama Presidency, but bombing Iran will only sink it.

    One US bomb lands on Iran and Obama will be politically dead! Dead to a degree that he could not be elected dogcatcher in his own home district in Chicago!

    Pipes did not vote for Obama because he is Republican to the core or worse Neocon, and now he is trying to destroy the Democrat Party completely, using Obama to sharpen the tip of his spear.

    The Americans are unaware of the fact that the Israelis control the US government, Congress and the Presidency, therefore they would blame Obama for yet another losing and disastrously war and he would be useless to the Israelis, therefore politically dead… not that it would matter to Israel, its plans, or its control over the USG because they would simply “appoint” another puppet via the next elections (or JFK him and promote Biden) and nothing would change an iota!

    But, either way, Obama would be a loser, dead under the bus of American politics. No loss as far as Israel or anyone else was concerned.

    So, I ask irreverently in an irrelevant aside, why is Pipes or anyone else all of a sudden so concerned about “saving the (Obama) presidency?”

    It really does not matter “whose” presidency it is for, until there is a major change of political climate in the US, it is Israel’s Presidency in the end. Read — Guilt By Association, By Jeff Gates.

    -Debbie Menon -

  • Patriot says:

    Neoconned fool Sarah Palin says ‘Attack Iran’ (she gets her foreign policy briefings from former PNAC Chairman Bill Kristol):

    http://blog.micshots.com/2010/02/07/sarah-palin–attack-iran.aspx

  • Harv says:

    First, I wish for a larger font type here, and there is nothing wrong with black print.

    Unfortunately, too many forces are pushing Obama into a war that they say we need and he needs. Cause–not necessarily start–an unnessary war with Iran and that will be a gigantic mistake. Forget a bunch of swift surgical strikes lead by Israel and buttressed by our resources. That will be just the start. The end will be the near defeat and inevitable defeat of Israel and but with them nuking everybody with their last bit of belligerence.

    T

  • Patton says:

    “War is a racket for the corporations.”

    General Smedly Butler. Twice awarded the CMH.

  • Patton says:

    Last week, it was Hillary spewing hate upon the world, with her obnoxious catalog of theoretical NATO-directives, as if ‘security’ and ‘partnership’ could EVER co-exist in, or could emanate from ‘New’ America.

    TODAY, I posed to a group of former ‘peacenicks,’ now reduced to a sniffling rubble, just three simple questions:

    In light of global concern for curtailing the power of the (sic) ‘Israeli Lobby,’ do you believe we have too many Jews in postions of authority in Washington? ..If so, are there any specfic Jews currently employed by this administration, who personally bother you by way of their overt support of foreign nations or financial powers?

    And, since EVERYONE clearly observed the Bush administration’s pattern of ‘felonious complicity,’ especially Pelosi’s clear case of obstruction of justice; “Impeachment is Off the Table!” –Are there any specific Jews who you think really must be ousted from all positions of authority, as soon as possible?
    _ _ _ _ _

    *The real American Jews, (as most of you probably know,) really aren’t remotely interested in ‘warmongering,’ like Nancy and Hillary, et. all. As a rule, Jewish folks are among the greatest contributors to our relatively progressive (and previously hugely prosperous) culture. The problem really is caused by ‘foreign financial elites.’ And I believe they are playing their (sic) Israeli citizens, like a fiddle. Ultimately seeing it (Palestine) as ‘little Miami,’ or ‘Chernobyl,’ whichever comes first. -For the record: Over a 30 year career 90% of my income has come from remarkably hip Jewish clients. Shame awaits anyone will ever attempt to label me ‘anti-Jewish.’

  • jim says:

    The “demonized Ahmadinejad” won his election by a landslide, in an election that was far more honest than the easily tampered electronic nonsense of the US. The pre-election polls actually picked him to win by a larger margin than he did. The fact that his opposition are the elitist college types and his supporters are the commoners speaks highly of Ahmadinejad.

    The US has surrounded Iran militarily, is going to cut off their refined petroleum with sanctions and a naval blockade, and this will absolutely lead to a war. The US seems to think that both Russia and China will back down while they attempt to turn Iran into Iraq, but that is unlikely. There is also the threat of Iran dealing major death to US troops in Iraq, as the Iraqis would view them as liberators at this point.

    This is absolutely a bad move for the US, particularly since the economy is in very dire straights. The criminals in Congress, the Senate, and the Executive Branch should all be hung from trees and burned. Their actions are going to eventually usher in a full scale nuclear war, and all they care about is their egos and bank accounts!

  • Jeanette says:

    No, Barky will not opt for anything. Unless of course that’s what his masters tell him to do. That fool doesn’t have any real power of his own at all, he’s just a silly little teleprompter reader with a to do list from the boss. If he did anything off-script he’s be JFK’d in short order. JFK was the last real president of the US and we all know how that ended.

  • WOLF says:

    Conspicuously obvious is the fact that Israel is blackmailing the USA with thermonuclear bombs already planted in several U.S. cities and that the “evil Jew” control every facet of his illegal government!

    Obama Is A Jew
    http://www.subvertednation.net/is-obama-jewish/

    Obama Is A Zionist Jew
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU0K9MWVqs0&feature=related

    Barack Obama is a ZIONIST ILLUMINATI part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM7L4SDGdqU&feature=related

    Barack Obama is a ZIONIST ILLUMINATI part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ztgZkwhbDk&feature=related

    How the ILLUMINATI made Obama President 1/9
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oIQu7go0JU&feature=related

    How the ILLUMINATI made Obama President 2/9
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQBC-8FCmhQ&feature=fvw

    How the ILLUMINATI made Obama President 3/9
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV00bB8JpX4&feature=related

    Antichrist Illuminati Obama New World Order Agenda 2012 Exposed
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xld4P4nz5hA&feature=related

    The Illuminati and the New World Order
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89SB59DT34&feature=related

    Illuminati and New World Order
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkqfC9NX_DY&feature=related

    Obama’s Jewish Grandfather
    http://www.henrymakow.com/is_obama_literally_americas_fi.html
    (Baruch Obama’s grandfather, Stanley “Dunham”) – Henry Makow, Ph.D.

    OBAMA PANDERS TO THE JEWS
    http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=132

    JEWISH MONEY & THE JEWISH MEDIA DECIDE who will be elected President. The latest patsy of the Jews is the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.

    Here is what Obama told the Jews this past Monday, January 28 2008, in a conference call with Jewish journalists:

    — “My strong commitment to the Jewish community should not be questioned.” —

    — “Jewish Americans are hungry for broader changes in this country. I expect to do very well among Jewish voters because Jewish voters are concerned not only about issues specific to the Jewish community, but also with American domestic and international policy.” —

    See: “Obama’s Call To The Jews” Here

    WHAT OBAMA REALLY MEANS BY HIS “JEWISH” STATEMENTS

    * “My commitment to the Jewish community should not be questioned.”

    Meaning: “I will bow before your wishes O Jews. If elected I will send billions of dollars to Israel to kill Palestinians.”

    * “Jewish Americans are hungry for broader changes in this country.”

    Meaning: “I will continue to eradicate every form of public expression of Christianity in America. At the same time, I will allow you O Jews to come to the White House and light your Hanukkah Menorahs in the Oval Room or outside on the White House lawn. But I will never allow a Nativity Scene anywhere!

    * “Jewish voters are concerned not only about issues specific to the Jewish community, but also with American domestic and international policy.”

    Meaning: “I will appoint Jews as my advisors. I will place Jews in every possible sphere of political influence. Just send me your money O Jews and keep my ratings high in your media.

    “Thus we can work together to strengthen your control of domestic and foreign policy by promoting Gay Rights, Separation of Church & State, and bombing every single one of your enemies!”

    HOW DO WE STOP JEWISH CONTROL
    OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS?

    Here are 3 options:

    1. Never vote for a candidate that says, “I am deeply committed to Israel.”

    2. Never vote for a candidate that the Jews support.

    3. Never vote for a candidate that seeks to please 2% of the population (Jews) rather than pleasing the remaining 98% of us.

    And pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that He would bring our nation out of the complete and total stranglehold that the Jews have on our nation’s political life!

    For More See: “Jews & The 2008 Elections” Click Here

    And: “Will Hillary Clinton Be The First Jewish President? ” Click Here

    NOTE:
    Harry Truman – Jew
    Roosevelt – Jew
    LBJ – Jew
    Clinton ½ Jew
    George H. Scherff, Jr., is GHWB Ashkenazi Jew
    The idiot son GWB is Ashkenazi Jew

  • WOLF says:

    Totalitarian “Synchronization” — Germany 1933 and USA 2010
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/47234.html
    The German National Socialists used the term Gleichschaltung to describe the “coordination” or “synchronization” of all government functions by centralizing power in the Chief Executive. This process was carried out through a series of executive decrees supposedly authorized by the 1933 Enabling Act, formally known as the “Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich.”

    The September 14, 2001 “Authorization for Use of Military Force” has served a similar function for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. That measure has been invoked to justify the war in Iraq, the institutionalization of torture, the presidential designation of individuals as “unlawful enemy combatants,” the summary execution of suspected terrorists by means of unmanned Predator drones, and other tyrannical exercises of presidential “authority” in the context of the “war on terror.”

    Yesterday (January 11), Barack Obama added another critical element to the architecture of wartime presidential dictatorship by signing an executive order establishing a “Council of Governors” for the supposed purpose of strengthening federal-state “partnership” in military and homeland security affairs.

    The body would consist of a bipartisan panel of ten state governors who will “meet at the call” of various executive functionaries, including the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to assist the Supreme Leader in carrying out the “synchronization” — again, what the Nazis called Gleichschaltung — “and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States.”

    According to an official White House press release, this new body will be invaluable in the effort to “relieve the distress of the people and Reich.” No, not really; the statement actually said that the Council “will provide an invaluable Senior Administration forum for exchanging views with State and local officials on strengthening our National resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our Nation today and in the future.” Which, come to think of it, is pretty much the same thing.

    Taken by itself, this executive order does little more than add another layer of bureaucracy dealing with the use of the National Guard. It should be remembered, however, that in 2006 Congress turned the National Guard into something akin to a Praetorian Guard to be used — whether at home or abroad — as the president desires. This helps explain an obvious and ominous change in the Guard’s definition of its mission and responsibilities, which include hands-on involvement in domestic law enforcement.

    It’s also worth pointing out that this new Council represents yet another avenue through which the president can circumvent congressional resistance to military adventurism, in the highly unlikely event that such resistance were to coalesce.

    While it’s true that Obama’s executive order will not immediately result in troops flooding our cities and detention camps springing from the soil, it represents a critical milestone on the road to undisguised dictatorship.

  • WOLF says:

    Summary Of Obama Financial Regulation Plan
    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090617-712735.html
    A summary of President Barack Obama’s regulatory plan, “Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation.”

    For the regulation of financial firms, the proposal:
    –Creates Financial Services Oversight Council, which would coordinate activities among regulators, replacing the President’s Working Group.
    –Ensures that any financial firm big enough to pose a risk to the financial system would be heavily regulated by the Federal Reserve, including regular stress tests.
    –Gives the Fed oversight over parent companies and all subsidiaries, including unregulated units and those based overseas.
    –Says the Treasury will re-examine capital standards for banks and bank-holding companies.
    –Tells regulators to issue guidelines on executive compensation, with the goal of aligning pay with long-term shareholder value, including a re-examination of the utility of golden parachutes.
    –Creates a new bank agency, the National Bank Supervisor, and kills the Office of Thrift Supervision. The new agency will look over national banks, including federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.
    –Forces industrial banks, non-bank financial firms and credit-card banks to become more traditional bank holding companies subject to federal oversight.
    –Kills the SEC program that supervised Wall Street investment banks.
    –Requires hedge funds, private-equity funds and venture-capital funds to register with the SEC, allowing the agency to collect data from the firms.
    –Subjects hedge funds to new requirements in areas such as record keeping, disclosure and reporting. The oversight would include assets under management, borrowings, off-balance sheet exposures.
    –Urges the SEC to give directors of money-market mutual funds the power to suspend redemptions, and take other action to strengthen regulation of money-market mutual funds to prevent runs.
    –Beefs up oversight of insurance by creating an office within the Treasury to coordinate information and policy.
    –Kicks off a process by which the Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development will figure out the future of mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE) and the federal home-loan banks.

    For the regulation of financial markets, the proposal:
    –Brings the markets for over-the-counter derivatives and asset-backed securities into a regulatory framework, strengthens regulation of derivatives dealers and forces trades to be executed through public counterparties, such as exchanges.
    –Toughens the regulatory regime, including more conservative capital requirements and tougher rules on counterparty credit exposure.
    –Strengthens laws designed to protect “unsophisticated parties” from trading derivatives “inappropriately.”

    –Gives the Fed more power over the infrastructure that governs these markets, such as payment and settlement systems.
    –Harmonizes the powers and authority of the SEC and CFTC to avoid conflicting rules relating to the same products.
    –Requires that originators, for example, mortgage brokers, should retain some economic interest in securitized products.
    –Directs regulators to “align” participants’ compensation with the long-term performance of underlying loans.
    –Urges the SEC to continue its efforts to improve the transparency and standardization of securitization markets and recommends the SEC have clear authority to require reporting from issuers of asset-back securities.
    –Urges the SEC to strengthen its regulation of credit-rating firms, including disclosing conflicts of interest, better differentiating between structured and unstructured debt and more clearly stating the risks of financial products.
    –Tells regulators to reduce their reliance on credit-rating firms.

    For regulations protecting consumers and investors, the proposal:
    –Creates a new agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, with broad authority over consumer-oriented financial products, such as mortgages and credit cards. The new agency would work with state regulators.
    –Gives the new agency power to write rules and levy fines based on a wide range of existing statutes.
    –Proposes new authority for the Federal Trade Commission over the banking sector, in areas such as data security.
    –Gives the new agency authority to ban or restrict mandatory arbitration clauses.
    –Says the new regulator should have authority to define standards for simple “plain vanilla” products, such as mortgages, which would have to be offered “prominently” by companies.
    –Beefs up the agency’s power to regulate unfair, deceptive or abusive practices.
    –Imposes “duties of care” that will have to be followed by financial intermediaries, such as stock brokers and financial advisers.
    –Regulates overdraft protection plans, treating them more like credit-card cash advances.
    –Strengthens SEC’s framework for investor protection by expanding the agency’s powers to beef up disclosures to investors, establish a fiduciary duty for broker-dealers who offer advice and expand protection for whistleblowers, including a fund that would pay for certain information.
    –Requires non-binding shareholder votes on executive compensation packages.

    To give the government more tools to manage crises, the proposal:
    –Creates a mechanism that allows the government to take over and unwind large, failing financial institutions.
    –Creates a formal process for deciding when to invoke this power, which could be initiated by the Treasury, Fed, FDIC or SEC.
    –Gives authority to make the final decision to the Treasury, with the backing of other regulators.

    –Gives the Treasury the authority to decide how to fix such a failing firm, whether through a conservatorship, receivership or some other method.
    –Taps the FDIC to act as conservator or receiver, except in the case of broker dealers or securities firms, in which case the SEC would take over.
    –Amends the Fed’s emergency lending powers to require prior written approval by the Treasury Secretary.

    In the international sphere, the proposal:
    –Recommends international regulators strengthen their definition of regulatory capital to improve the quality, quantity, and international consistency of capital.
    –Recommends that various international bodies implement the Group of 20 recommendations, including requiring banks to hold more capital.
    –Urges that national authorities standardize oversight of credit derivatives and markets.
    –Urges other countries to follow the U.S. lead and: subject systemically significant companies to stricter oversight.

    WOLF’s NOTE: In the public sector (citizens) this criminal government act embodies all the principals of Communism!

  • Paul L says:

    One can only conclude from the madness of bombing yet another country into the stone age, this time Iran, that it is true, just as Israeli prime-minster Sharon bragged that we, meaning, “Israel controls America”. Congress is filled with “Israel firsters” and various other political whores willing to sell out America to enrich themselves.

  • GreyWolf says:

    What can happen in Iran can easily be used against Americans back home. It is something for all of us to fear & stand against.

    If ur interested in a new book just out then I recommend this one cause it’s about a small town in American where the citizens stand up to federal tyranny & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. It’s a powerful read for 2010 & what each of us need to do to defend the constitution. Maybe, history is now calling on all of us to find our destiny.
    http://www.booksbyoliver.com

  • Keep the posting up. I never thought I would find an individual that had close to the same grasp of worldly knowldege , however, you are that beacon of hope in humanity!I hope you continue to bring your knowldge and enlightenment to the world and never let your expression be squelched! Live strong!

Leave a Reply