ACTIVISM: Anti Star wars defense update

JUNE 22 PHOTOS AND AN EMAIL FROM THE COLONEL

Folks met in Brunswick, Maine on the town green for an hour of sign
holding, writing letters to Condi Rice (who goes to the Czech
Republic on July 10 to sign the Star Wars radar agreement), and we
closed with a circle and everyone shared why they had come. Most
of those in the photo fasted on June 22.

In dozens of cities all over the world the June 22 global day of
fasting brought people out onto the streets in creative displays
of solidarity with the 70% of the people in the Czech Republic who
are working hard to reject U.S. plans to deploy a Star Wars radar
facility in their country.

Thousands of signatures were gathered for the petition at
http://www.nonviolence.cz/ In many places statements were written
on paper plates to Secretary of State Rice and will be sent to her
before her visit to Prague in early July.

You can find many more photos, and reports, at this web site.

At the end of the day I received an email from Col. Robert Suminsby,
Jr. in which he said, "The point I made, and will continue to make,
is that the country is on an unsustainable course. The growth of
entitlement spending, left unchecked, will eventually crowd out all
other parts of the federal budget."

Col. Suminsby worries that people like me are taking a fixed position
of hands off entitlement spending ........"You see, I'm prepared
to make sacrifices to fix national problems. I think others should
expect to make sacrifices as well," he said.

I want to assure the Colonel that I too am ready to see "sacrifices"
made for the good of the nation. I'd like to see the $14 billion
of month we are wasting in Iraq and Afghanistan brought home to
build rail systems, solar, and windmills. I'd like to not see us
attack Iran. I'd like to see an end to tax cuts for the rich and
the corporations. I want an end to the NSA's "warrantless wiretapping"
of American citizens and people all over the world.

I'd like to see at least a 50% cut in military spending for starters.
(Just yesterday an article was sent around about the increases in
funding for the Pentagon's high-tech black "secret" budget. I'd
like to see the black budget shut down.) I'd like to see the 750
plus U.S. military bases around the world shut down.

Living at a time where we face increasing corporate media consolidation
many of us have to rely on email, websites, and blogs to get our
messages out to the general public. Newspapers are now in dire
financial straits, in part, because people rely on the Internet as
their primary source of information.

Col. Suminsby concluded his email to me by saying, "Therebs precious
little difference between you and any number of right-wing blowhards
on talk radiob&on either end of the ideological spectrum, if you
insist on creating your own version of someonebs position and then
attacking it, youbll succeed only in making yourself feel good, and
convincing those who already agreed with you."

I would thank Col. Suminsby for sending me the email. He should
know that increasing majorities of the people in the U.S. and around
the world are now quite uncomfortable with the escalating U.S.
military empire. There is a growing backlash against U.S. militarism
both here at home and abroad.

I noticed that the Colonel is soon to be transferred to Germany. I
lived there in the mid-1960's when my Air Force father was stationed
in Wiesbaden. One day our middle school class was taken to the Rhine
River to view the ruins of a castle. The tourist guide informed us
that the stone slab we were standing on had once been the barracks
of Roman soldiers. I remember wondering to myself, "What were those
soldiers doing so far from home?" Even at that young age I intuitively
understood that empires are a contradiction and in time can not
stand. They are destined to fall.

In our case the U.S. empire is now collapsing. One clear sign is
that in the U.S. there is growing competition for the federal tax
dollar. Will we fund the Pentagon or social progress? We can't serve
two masters.

It appears that the debate will go on.

Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear
Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org global...@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)

Required reading: A revolt elite power is in the air ..

Any one who reads me knows - I don't believe in Barak Obama, I believe in The Constitution of the United States.

This has some good history however; forget the Barak Obama propaganda - he's the next Hitler!

They don't point out his connections to Zbig, AIPAC, or any of the other baggage. He has the same advisers as Constitution-busting HiLIARy Clinton.

Obama didn't grow up POOR; his mother worked for the depopulation biggies at Ford Foundation!

The LAWS OF WAR are more important that the presidendency of hahaha Constitutional scholar Barak Obama ..

NO MORE ASSASSINATIONS! We need three presidents, not another KING.

Veeger

A REVOLT AGAINST ELITE POWER IS
IN THE AIR, AND THE ELITES ARE
BREATHING FIRE AGAINST IT

By: S.R. Shearer
JUNE 21, 2008

"And then suddenly, unexpectedly, out of nowhere there is an explosion from below in which millions of people begin to engage the 'established order' on a 'revolutionary' basis. They reach for revolutionary changes to the oppressive conditions they have been living under …"

Joel Geier ISR Magazine

INTRODUCTION

Joel Geier writes that most of the time people are loath to rise up against an oppressive government. Instead, they find it much more expedient to adapt to existing conditions, even very bad ones. They feel powerless; they don't think they can change things. Add to that the fact that there are not many true revolutionaries in the world - and the few who actually exist are considered unrealistic utopians and are, as a result, marginalized - and it is easy to see why revolution (even a bloodless one; even one achieved through "constitutional" means) is a path seldom chosen by most people.

"The people" are warned away from the very few revolutionaries that exist. They are told that if they join themselves to these utopians and dreamers, they too will find themselves marginalized and "cut-off" from all that passes as "conventional" and "established" in this life. So give the idea of revolution up; forget it, relax, enjoy your life - or what there exists of it; that's the best you can hope for.

And then suddenly, unexpectedly, out of nowhere there is an "EXPLOSION FROM BELOW" in which millions of people begin to engage the "established order" on a "revolutionary" basis. They reach for revolutionary changes to the oppressive conditions they have been living under - AND IN DOING SO, THEY THREATEN TO DIVEST THE GOVERNING FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL ELITES OF THEIR POWER AND ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH, AND SWEEP THEM AWAY, just as "the people" did to the French and Russian elites in 1789 and 1917 respectively. And make no mistake about it - these two years - i.e., 1789 and 1917 - have been stamped indelibly into the mindset of the world's elites as nightmares more horrible and ghastly than hell itself.

1933 & 1968

Most people today think that the elites in the United States have never been threatened in such a fashion. But that's not quite true; for example, the elites in America were twice threatened with extinction in the 20^th century - once in the 1930s, and again in the '60s - and each time the elites reacted with a murderous rage. In the 1930s it was the New Deal of FDR that threatened to undo the American elites; and in the 1960s it was the Civil Rights Movement and the rage against the Vietnam War that threatened to do so.

In the first instance, the rage of "the people" was driven by an unprecedented economic crisis - the Great Depression; and in the second instance, their frenzy was driven by the twin conundrums of a war that wouldn't go away (and that was swallowing up in its bloody maw thousands and thousands of American soldiers as human sacrifices), and by the drive for civil rights by heretofore marginalized factions of the American population that threatened to undo the social and political "establishment" upon which the elites relied.

IN BOTH OF THESE INSTANCES, WHAT HAPPENED WENT FAR BEYOND THE USUAL FAKE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTES.

THE FAKE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE
REPUBLICANS & THE DEMOCRATS

The very real fact of the matter is, the well-known struggle between Democrats and Republicans is one that can be characterized by dramatic posturing and pulled punches. The ruse is instantly apparent to anyone with even a casual interest in US politics. It continues due only to the vast amount of voter ignorance and apathy. The apathy exists for good reason - politics are as exciting now as comparing the respective market strategies of Coke and Pepsi. There is nothing new being said, nothing creative being done - just endless reverberations in an echo chamber.

Democrats and Republicans pay attention solely to their differences, and the media outlets and general public willingly follow suit. The real issues that divide the two parties are minuscule, but this fact is covered over because both emphasize so-called "wedge" issue, and in doing so emphasize those things that divide them while obscuring their similarities - similarities that ensure the continuing dominance of the nation by the elites.

This tactic is highly effective. If you believe in wedge issue A, then you must be with the A-believers. But the A-believers also come with baggage loaded up by the elites that have nothing to do with wedge issue A. For example, What does abortion have to do with an unregulated market? What does global warming have to do with labor unions? But if you are going to support A, you must also support B, C, and D - all of which are issues that ensure the survival of elite power. Whether you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you're voting for the same thing - the perpetuation of the elite's monopoly of the country's economic and political system. [Please see Forum: The Monopoly of the Republocrats, whose superb description of this fake struggle we have used here.]

BUT IN 1933 AND AGAIN IN 1968, THIS WAS NOT SO! REAL REVOLUTIONARY FORCES ROSE TO THE SURFACE, AND THE USUAL "PLAY" BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES PROVED TO BE INEFFECTIVE IN OBSCURING THEM. IN BOTH INSTANCES, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FELL "VICTIM" TO THESE REVOLUTIONARY DRIVES; AND IN DOING SO, THEY THREATENED TO END THE GAME THAT THE "OLD-LINE" OR "MODERATE" DEMOCRATS (THOSE DEMOCRATS WHO TODAY ARE MEMBERS OF THE DLC OR THE CLINTON FACTION OF THE PARTY) HAD BEEN PLAYING WITH THE REPUBLICANS. The elites survived "the people's" rage against them in these two instances,

BUT NOW A NEW "RAGE" HAS SURFACED AGAINST THE ELITES; A RAGE THAT MAY PROVE EVEN MORE POWERFUL THAN THE ONES THAT OCCURRED IN 1933 AND 1968. ONCE AGAIN, THIS RAGE HAS FOUND A HOME IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AND IT HAS FOUND A CHAMPION IN BARRACK OBAMA.

THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE THE ELITES GOING TO DO TO STOP IT? ARE THEY GOING DO WHAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO DO AGAINST FDR (AND FAILED), AND WHAT THEY DID AGAINST MARTIN LUTHER KING AND ROBERT KENNEDY (AND SUCCEEDED)? That's the question!

PART 1:
1933 AND THE "NEW DEAL"

A MANDATE FOR CHANGE

In the winter of 1932-33, America was in the grip of the worst economic depression of the century. The economy had nearly ground to a halt and unemployment had reached a staggering one-quarter of the American population; bread lines and soup kitchens were everywhere, and hundreds and hundreds of shanty towns called "Hoovervilles" (named after Republican President Herbert Hoover) had sprung up, populated by those unfortunates who had been evicted from their homes.

A new President was about to take office: Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). FDR had thrashed the elites' man, Herbert Hoover, in the November election of '32, and had been given an overwhelming mandate from the American people to reverse their fortunes - even if it meant sweeping the elites from power and installing what many members of America's elite class [e.g., the Morgans (banks and the financial sector), the Mellons (banks and the financial sector), the DuPonts (chemicals and technology), the Fords (automobiles and transportation), the Harrimans (railroads), the Sloans (General Motors), etc.] believed was a "socialist government."

Should Roosevelt succeed in his proposed measures - what he called a "New Deal" for average, working Americans - the elites' feared that their financial power would be permanently broken. [Please see our article, "The Religious Right and the Business Right: An Alliance Made in Hell;" please also see David Farber, Sloan Rules: Alfred P. Sloan and the Triumph of General Motors; please also see Facing the Corporate Roots of Fascism, March 2004, Published by the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/sloan.html)]

AN EXPLOSION FROM BELOW

This was one of those "EXPLOSIONS FROM BELOW" that Geier talks about (see above); one that - unexpectedly and out of nowhere - engaged millions and millions of average Americans in a revolutionary rage against their "masters" in the elite; the kind of rage capable of producing another French or Russian Revolution in the American homeland; one that could very well sweep the elites permanently from power.

With their power thus threatened, the financial oligarchs were ready to take a radical course of action: ROOSEVELT HAD TO BE ELIMINATED! Thus was set in motion a series of murderous events that most Americans have never heard of - events that have over the years been carefully concealed from the American people by the elites and their toadies in the media who very much feared what the consequences would be for the survival of even the barest form of capitalism should the truth get out.

NOTE #1: Even Roosevelt - the target of the elites' rage - participated in the cover-up. Roosevelt and those who surrounded him feared that "the people" would be swept up in an uncontrollable fury if the facts concerning these events were ever fully revealed; and - as a consequence - they would demand a socialist government that even he (i.e., Roosevelt) could not manage. One must remember in this regard that at the height of the depression, socialism seemed like a very real alternative to capitalism insofar as countless numbers of Americans were concerned.

NOTE #2: It is very difficult for most Americans to fully comprehend the important role that political assassination has played in the history of our nation - and not just insofar as so-called "lone-assassins" are concerned, but assassinations involving very complex plots and many, many people. It seems that most Americans are prepared to see the importance that complex assassination plots play in the histories of "Third World" nations, and even the nations of Europe; but not America - as if Americans are somehow or other exempt from the strictures of Romans 3:23, "For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," strictures that would make them as vulnerable to the foibles of ordinary men as the Europeans and those in the so-called Third World are.

The fact is, however, political assassinations have played a routine role in the history of America's foreign relations, and have been used to great effect in the pursuit of American objectives abroad. An abbreviated list of those who have been targeted for assassination by the United States just since the end of World War II was compiled several years ago by William Blum, a very prominent figure in America's foreign policy "establishment." Some of the assassination attempts proved successful, others were not; but the fact that ALL these very prominent individuals were targeted for assassination makes one's blood run cold, AND GIVES ONE AN IDEA OF JUST HOW FAR THE ELITES WHO GOVERN THE UNITED STATES ARE PREPARED TO GO IN PURSUIT OF THEIR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES:

1949		Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader.
1950s		CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany.
1950s		Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life.
1950s		Sukarno, President of Indonesia.
1951		Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea.
1950s		Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader.
1955		Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India.
1957		Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt.
1959		Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia.
1960		Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq.
1950s-70s		José Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life.
1961		Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti.
1961		Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire).
1961		Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic.
1963		Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam.
1960s		Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s		Raúl Castro, high official in government of Cuba.
1965		Francisco Caamaño, Dominican Republic opposition leader.
1965-6		Charles de Gaulle, President of France.
1967		Che Guevara, Cuban leader.
1970		Salvador Allende, President of Chile.
1970		Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile.
1970s, '81		General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama.
1972		General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence.
1975		Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire.
1976		Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica.
1980-'86		Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life.
1982		Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran.
1983		Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander.
1983		Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua.
1984		The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate.
1985		Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt).
1991		Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq.

ANNOTATION: The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by the CIA and headquartered in the United States.

Much, much more at
http://www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000281.htm

SPP and PLUTOCRACY: YOU decide!!

Plutocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n a plutocracy, power and opportunity are centralized within the affluent social class. The degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems. The word plutocracy (Modern Greek: πλουτοκρατία - ploutokratia) itself is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratein, meaning to rule or to govern.

Usage

The term plutocracy is generally used to describe two distinct concepts: a historical term and a modern political term. The former indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include some city-states in Ancient Greece, the Italian merchant republics of Venice and Florence, and Genoa. Plutocracies typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anomie.^{[citation needed]}

Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there has been "the fusion of money and government." [1]

Before the equal voting rights movement managed to end it in the early 20th century, many countries used a system in which rich individuals had more votes than poor. For instance, a factory owner could have 2000 votes, while a worker would only have one. Moreover, if they were very poor they would have no right to vote at all. Even artificial persons such as companies had voting rights.

Modern Political

The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to the disproportionate influence the wealthy have on the political process in contemporary society. Positive influence includes campaign contributions and bribes; negative influence includes refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, and so on. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues. Recent examples include Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's alleged political agendas in Australia, the UK [2] and the United States or the oil industry oligarchy which may back right-leaning political action committees (PACs), as well as billionaire George Soros' efforts to influence US politics by backing left-leaning PACs.

Recently, there have been numerous cases of wealthy individuals and organizations exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favorable legislation. (see: Lobbying) Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives; however it would be unlikely that no politicians are influenced by these contributions. Some describe these donations as bribes, although legally they are not. In the United States, campaign finance reform efforts seek to ameliorate this situation. However, campaign finance reform must successfully challenge officials who are beneficiaries of the system which allows this dynamic in the first place. This has led many reform advocates to suggest taxpayer dollars be used to replace private campaign contributions, these reforms are often called clean money, clean elections reform as opposed to simply campaign finance reform which does not address the conflict of interest involved where most or all of the campaign money is from private, often for-profit sources. Critics of so-called clean elections point out that that having the government decide which candidates would receive tax dollars and therefore be allowed to run would create an effective dictatorship where the government decides who the people can vote for.

Plutocracy-Forms of Control

A Plutocracy is a government controlled by that minuscule percentage of extremely wealthy individuals found in most societies. In many forms of government, those in power benefit financially, sometimes enough to belong to the aforementioned wealthy class.

Classically, a plutocracy was an oligarchy, which is to say a government controlled by the wealthy few. Usually this meant that these ‘plutocrats’ controlled not only the executive, legislative and judicial aspects of government, but also most of the natural resources, including the armed forces. To a certain degree, there are still some situations in which private corporations and wealthy individuals may exert such strong influence on governments, that the effect can arguably be compared to a plutocracy.