Fox News is reporting that President Obama “has granted an 11th hour request by Attorney General Eric Holder to invoke executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents, a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote against Holder by Republicans in the House.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is still expected to move on with its vote Wednesday to put Holder in contempt of Congress.
More coming shortly…
UPDATE:
So much for being the most transparent administration ever…
This last-minute move by President Obama, to use his executive privilege over documents concerning ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ is downright sickening.
“There’s been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there is something a little shaky that’s taking place, and I think the administration would be best served by coming clean on this.” – Sen. Barack Obama (D – Illinois), 2007.”
Just before a scheduled contempt vote, Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R – California)received a letter from a Justice Department official stating that President Obama’s executive privilege would be applicable to the documents. Just last night, Attorney General Eric Holder met with Issa in a failed attempt to reach an agreement in which Holder would turn over these documents. Issa told reporters after the 20-minute meeting that Holder briefed him on the documents, but provided nothing in writing.
“We want the documents. [Deceased Border Patrol agent] Brian Terry’s family would like the documents that are responsive to how in fact their son was gunned down with weapons that came from lawful dealers but at the behest of the Justice Department,” Issa said yesterday.
“The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions,” said Senator Chuck Grassley, a ranking Republican from Iowa on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances. The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it’s never repeated again.”
The less ‘wordy’ response: What the hell in those documents is so important that the President wants to hide?
As I type this (just after noon), Issa is forging on with plans for a committee vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. According to Fox News:
The announcement instantly touched off a caustic debate on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as Democrats accused Issa of prosecuting a “political witch hunt” and Republicans stepped up their criticism of Holder’s “stonewalling” over the Fast and Furious probe. Even for Washington, the tone at the hearing was decidedly bitter and accusatory.”
Issa simply said, “This untimely assertion by the Justice Department falls short of any reason to delay today’s proceedings.”
Why are we even talking about this? If these documents say what Holder says they do, why wouldn’t he just turn them over? Eric Holder has now pulled President Obama into the situation that will now only serve to divide political Washington even further.
Mr. Holder, If the documents clear you, hand them over and make Republicans look stupid. If you can’t do that, you end up making yourself look guilty…very guilty.
Check back to IJReview.com for updates throughout the day.
On Wednesday, activists and journalists across America rejoiced in a federal judge’s ruling that the National Defense Authorization Act is unconstitutional. The judge sided with the plaintiffs when it came to section 1021 of the act, which allows for the military to indefinitely detain Americans at home and abroad without due process. But now Congress is seeking to create a new NDAA. On Friday, the US House of Representatives approved the 2013 NDAA and even shot down an amendment that would cancel the indefinite detention provisions. Carl Mayer, attorney for The Mayer Law Group representing the plaintiffs, joins us for more on the NDAA.
Who is is pushing NDAA and all the police state legislation: LIEBERMAN, LEVIN, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, SCHUMER, CANTOR. ALL the head chairs of ALL the house and senate committees are kazarian JEWS Who runs the fed? kazarian JEWS, Ben SHALOM Bernanke , Alan Greenspan and most of the federal reserve governors are kazarian JEWS, 70% of the top positions at GOLDMAN Sachs are kazarian JEWS, who do you think orchestrated the financial crisis? CFTC=Garry gentler=kazarian JEW
Unfortunately for the people of the world everything is going according to the New World Order Plan. But what is this New World Order Plan? In a nutshell the Plan is this. The Dark Agenda of the secret planners of the New World Order is to reduce the world’s population to a “sustainable” level “in perpetual balance with nature” by a ruthless Population Control Agenda via Population and Reproduction Control. A Mass Culling of the People via Planned Parenthood, toxic adulteration of water and food supplies, release of weaponised man-made viruses, man-made pandemics, mass vaccination campaigns and a planned Third World War. Then, the Dark Agenda will impose upon the drastically reduced world population a global feudal-fascist state with a World Government, World Religion, World Army, World Central Bank, World Currency and a micro-chipped population. In short, to kill 90% of the world’s population and to control all aspects of the human condition and thus rule everyone, everywhere from the cradle to the grave.
Austerity Measures and Bailouts are just payments to the Illuminati Family’s by way or proxy! First the Banksters get Nations in dept by loans and bailouts that can not be paid back, like what is happening in America. Second The Nation makes governmental cuts like what is happening in EUROPE aka stealing pensions , cutting services like Parks, Police Teachers Firemen ect ect! Then the Government sells off Parks Government owned property, Roads Water ways Parks ect ect to the Illuminati Bankster Familys AKA the MOBSTERS!
This is all part of the(The Hegelian Dialectic) aka The Problem Reaction Solution method! .. the Illuminati family’s or the ruling elite create a problem, anticipating in advance the reaction that the population will have to the problem and then have the prepared Solution! Example an Global Economic Melt down. The after the people react and demand a solution to the created problems that was the desired agenda of the ruling elite. Then and only then the Pre prepared agenda of the Global Elite Banksters presented as the solution such as a one world Governmental Monetary system or Global Governmental system to fix the problem.
The bad part about this conspiracy is that along with the reaction to the problem the population becomes violent, in protesting the Austerity Measures implemented by the Governments! And once again (The Hegelian Dialectic)comes into place with FEMA CampsAKA Concentration Camps for the protesters dissidents and homeless people effected by the Illuminati s Global Agenda
The Expansionary fiscal contraction hypothesis is the economic theory that explores whether government austerity can result in economic expansion. This hypothesis indicates that expansion from austerity is very limited and occurs only during periods when consumption is not constrained.
Austerity measures are typically taken if there is a threat that a government cannot honor its debt liabilities. Such a situation may arise if a government has borrowed in foreign currencies that they have no right to issue or they have been legally forbidden from issuing their own currency. In such a situation, banks may lose trust in a government’s ability and/or willingness to pay and either refuse to roll over existing debts or demand extremely high interest rates. In such situations, inter-governmental institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may demand austerity measures in exchange for functioning as a lender of last resort. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as ‘IMF conditionalities‘.
Development projects, welfare, and other social spending are common programs that are targeted for cuts: Taxes, port and airport fees, train and bus fares are common sources of increased user fees.
In many cases, austerity measures have been associated with protest movements claiming significant decline in standard of living. A case in point is the nation of Greece. The financial crisis—particularly the austerity package put forth by the EU and the IMF— was met with great anger by the Greek public, leading to riots and social unrest. On 27 June 2011, trade union organizations commenced a forty-eight hour labor strike in advance of a parliamentary vote on the austerity package, the first such strike since 1974. Massive demonstrations were organized throughout Greece, intended to pressure parliament members into voting against the package. The second set of austerity measures was approved on 29 June 2011, with 155 out of 300 members of parliament voting in favor. However, one United Nations official warned that the second package of austerity measures in Greece could pose a violation of human rights.[5]
Austerity programs can be controversial. In the Overseas Development Institute briefing paper “The IMF and the Third World” the ODI addresses five major complaints against the IMF’s austerity ‘conditionalities’. These complaints include these measures being “anti-developmental”, “self-defeating”, and “they tend to have an adverse impact on the poorest segments of the population”. In many situations, austerity programs are implemented by countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that the citizens are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.[6][7][8]
Economist Richard D. Wolff has stated that instead of cutting government programs and raising taxes, austerity should be attained by collecting (taxes) from non-profitmultinational corporations, churches, and private tax-exempt institutions such as universities, which currently pay no taxes at all.[9]
In 2009, 2010, and 2011, workers and students in Greece and other European countries demonstrated against cuts to pensions, public services and education spending as a result of government austerity measures.[10][11] Following the announcement of plans to introduce austerity measures in Greece, massive demonstrations were witnessed throughout the country, aimed at pressing parliamentarians to vote against the austerity package. In Athens alone 19 arrests were made while 46 civilians and 38 policemen had been injured by June 29, 2011. The third round austerity has been approved by the Greece parliament on February 12, 2012 and has met strong opposition especially in the cities of Athens and Thessaloniki where the police have clashed with demonstrators.
Opponents argue that austerity measures tend to depress economic growth, which ultimately causes governments to lose more money in tax revenues. In countries with already anemic economic growth, austerity can engender deflation which inflates existing debt. This can also cause the country to fall into a liquidity trap, causing credit markets to freeze up and unemployment to increase. Opponents point to cases in Ireland and Spain in which austerity measures instituted in response to financial crises in 2009 proved ineffective in combating public debt, and placing those countries at risk of defaulting in late 2010.[12]
The term “Age of austerity” was popularized by British Conservative leader David Cameron in his keynote speech to the Conservative party forum in Cheltenham on April 26, 2009, when he committed to put an end to what he called years of excessive government spending.[13][14]
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary named the word “austerity” as its “Word of the Year” for 2010 because of the number of web searches this word generated that year. According to the president and publisher of the dictionary, “austerity had more than 250,000 searches on the dictionary’s free online [website] tool” and the spike in searches “came with more coverage of the debt crisis”.[15]
This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (June 2011)
Anti-austerity protests, chiefly taking the form of massive street protests by those affected by them and some of them also involving a greater or lesser degree of militancy, have happened regularly across various countries, especially on the European continent, since the onset of the present-day worldwide financial crisis. The phenomena are, collectively, decidedly separate, conceptually, from the austerity measures themselves, even though the enactment of the latter is a prerequisite for the former. This is because they are of the sizes they are; that they cut across age groups (e.g., both students and older workers) and other demographics; that they can incorporate many different types of actions in many different segments of a given country’s economy including educationfunding, infrastructure funding, manufacturing, aviation, social welfare, and many many others; and that the phenomenon of austerity, when explained by itself, is inadequate to properly encompass the phenomenon of widespread opposition to it, and that opposition’s nuances and fluctuations.
Anti-austerity actions are varied, ongoing, and can be either sporadic and loosely-organised or longer-term and tightly-organised. Theycontinue as of the present day. Recent upheavals in Tunisia and in Egypt in 2011 were originally largely anti-austerity and anti-unemployment before turning into wider social revolutions.
Most recently, the global and still-spreading Occupy movement has arguably been the most noticeable physical enactment of anti-austerity and populist sentiment.
Austerity is mainly noticed by a country when its aspects (usually known as ‘cuts’) are implemented unilaterally and forcibly (a “hatchet job“) rather than through a more careful strategy of creeping normalcy wherein such cuts are made to seem reasonable, or at least tolerable. Austerity is usually only referred to by that name when it is part of a sweeping package or packages of reforms that have the openly-admitted effect of great or even complete overhaul of major aspects of a society’s socioeconomic core facilities, programs and/or services. Because of this nature, austerity programs in general often are virulently opposed by the populations experiencing them, as they tend to have an impact on the poorest segments of the population. Those who are pro-austerity (who usually refer to the process as “deficit reduction”) usually counter that these poorest segments of the population would also suffer the most should a debt crisisoccur[citation needed], an argument rejected by most anti-austerity individuals.
Prior to the 2010 European sovereign debt crisis, in many situations, austerity programs were implemented by countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes (e.g., Portugal, Greece, Spain), leading to criticism that the citizens are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.[1][2][3] In Greece, for example, the current austerity measures are popularly viewed as a combination of leftover policies of the 1967-1974 military dictatorship in that country on the one hand, and the “betrayal” of socialist principles by the current parliamentary-majority Panhellenic Socialist Movement on the other hand, due to that party’s wholesale enactment of extremely severe austerity measures in the country, which most everyday Greeks conceive of as intensely right-wing in nature, at least when compared to the party’s officially-stated core beliefs.[citation needed]
In the present-day enactments of various “austerity budgets”, however, a prior history of dictatorship is not necessarily a precondition for the implementation of such a budget by a given government. Examples of countries implementing severe austerity measures without a history of what the world’s mainstream media would typically consider a ‘dictatorship’, include the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the latter of which witnessed its housing market completely (rather than partially as elsewhere) collapse, and the Republic eventually appealing for a massive bailout from the International Monetary Fund, “in exchange for” implementation of a very severe austerity programme. The austerity measures and the terms of the IMF bailout became major aspects of the 2008–2011 Irish financial crisis, and popular anger over these issues played a very major role in the loss of governmental power of Fianna Fáil to opposition parties in the 2011 Irish general election. The loss was so complete and so total for Fianna Fáil that many commentators remarked that the results were “historic”. Fine Gael and the Labour Party entered in to a coalition government with one another, and Fine Gael’s leaders have vowed to re-negotiate the terms of the IMF bailout so that austerity can be slowed or stopped and the Irish economy can be given a chance to grow again.[4]Sinn Féin, which for the first time also won a notable percentage in the election, has called for a nationwide referendum over whether the bailout agreement should be scrapped altogether, but this suggestion has been met with dismissal by officials.[5]
Austerity in most European countries, including Spain and Italy — where there have been massive anti-austerity protests, wildcat strikes, and union-organized industrial actions of various types at semi-regular intervals since late 2008, earning for the most part massive worldwide media attention — is by no means limited to what could be the ‘expected’ areas of the economy that might in theory experience direct penalties as a result of gross mismanagement, such as financial institutions. In fact, financial institutions rarely, if ever, truly receive such ‘punishment’ by a country’s government; austerity-like levies could perfectly well be imposed on them for causing, or helping to cause, the crisis that leads to the austerity measures in the first place, but typically are not. Instead, it is argued (chiefly by people engaging in anti-austerity protests, but also some economists as well) that rather than ‘punish’ the banks and others truly responsible for the crisis, the government is instead ‘punishing’ regular people for the ‘crimes’ of others, namely the ‘elite’ and/or greedy professional money-handlers engaging in market manipulation.
100,000 peaceful anti-austerity protesters in front of the parliament of Greece on 29 June 2011.
The May–July 2011 Greek protests, also known as the “Indignant Citizens Movement” or the “Greek indignados”, started demonstrating throughout Greece on 25 May 2011;[6] the movement’s largest demonstration was on 5 June, with 300,000 people gathering in front of the Greek Parliament,[7] while the organizers put the number to 500,000.[8] The protests lasted for over a month without any violent incidents, while on 29 June 2011, amid a violent police crackdown and accusations of police brutality by international media and Amnesty International,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] the square was evacuated but demonstrations continued the next day despite the crackdown;[16][17] they officially ended on 7 August 2011,[18] but resumed in October.
The 2011 Spanish protests, whose participants are sometimes referred to as the “indignados“, are a series of ongoing anti-austerity demonstrations in Spain that rose to prominence beginning on 15 May 2011; thus, the movement is also sometimes referred to as the May 15 or M-15 movement as well. It is a collection of several different instances of continuous demonstrations countrywide, with a common origin in internet social networks and the Democracia Real Ya web presence, along with 200 other small associations.[19]
In late March 2011 the Portuguese Prime Minister resigned a few hours after the latest austerity bill he backed was rejected by the rest of government. The government called that particular austerity round unacceptable.[20] In his resignation speech, Jose Socrates expressed concern that an IMF bailout akin to Greece and Ireland would now be unavoidable.
In mid-March 2011 the British Medical Association held an emergency meeting at which it broadly decided to emphatically oppose pending legislation in the British Parliament, the Health and Social Care Bill, that would overhaul the functioning of the National Health Service. Dr Layla Jader, a public health physician, said: “The NHS needs evolution not revolution – these reforms are very threatening to the future of the NHS. If they go through, our children will look back and say how could you allow this to happen?” And Dr Barry Miller, an anaethetist from Bolton, added: “The potential to do phenomenal damage is profound. I haven’t seen any evidence these proposals will improve healthcare in the long-term.”[21] There have also been various grassroots groups of UK citizenry virulently opposing the pending new bill, including NHS Direct Action,[22] 38 Degrees,[23] and the trade unionUnite.[24]
One of the United Kingdom‘s most severe austerity measures came into the force of law on 9 December 2010: spending for higher education and tuition subsidies and assistance in Englishuniversities — historically rather substantial in scale — was cut by an astounding total of 80%.[25] That announcement and its implications, which included a near-tripling of student tuition fees from their previous levels[26] up to a new ceiling of £9000/year, led to a huge backlash amongst students who almost immediately took to the streets over various non-sequential days against this announcement, squaring off with police on several occasions including an instance where some students angrily entered the Conservative headquarters and smashed windows and destroyed its interior.[27]On the day of the passage of the measure itself, there was an explosion of street violence by enraged students and their allies, especially in London. There is an ongoing law enforcement investigation into, and even active pursuing of,[28] the participants of the violence over the various protest days, with particular attention focusing on the moments when a number of protesters successfully attacked a royal car driving on its way to a London event,[29] although they did not injure its occupants. Shouts of “off with their heads” were reportedly heard.[30] On 25 March 2011, Charlie Gilmour, son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour, became one of the more high-profile individuals to be officially charged in relation to those events.[31] As a result of these protests, a number of groups formed to combat the austerity measures that began with the cuts to higher education. One such example is Bloomsbury Fightback!, which is a group of radical students and workers in Bloomsbury, London, centred around the Bloomsbury Colleges in theUniversity of London and focusing on organising around education and employment issues, of which many are the result of the austerity measures, .
The group UK Uncut is one outgrowth of the anger felt by average citizens at austerity, albeit the group focuses not so much on combating the cuts themselves as on demanding that the rich, rather than the poor, pay the shortfalls causing the austerity in the first place — a sort of “tax the rich” movement. UK Uncut attempts to organise flash mob protests inside the highest-profile buildings of the businesses of the rich people avoiding tax or paying less than they should.
Around the same time as the heating-up of the England protests (but before the passing of the bill), students in Italy occupied theleaning tower of Pisa in a similar protest regarding its own educational system.[32]
On 27 November 2010, a massive protest against pending austerity took place in Dublin;[33]The Irish Examiner news service also reports on a 7 December 2010 clash around the Dáil where protesters threw smoke bombs and flares at police.[34] Additionally, La Scala in Italy experienced a clash on 8 December 2010 including scuffles with police.[35]
More generally, throughout 2009 and 2010, workers and students in Greece and other European countries demonstrated against cuts to pensions, public services and education spending as a result of government austerity measures.[36] There was a brief airport strike in Spain in December 2010, and assorted brief “general strike”-like actions in France have taken place, particularly around the very controversial plan of the French government to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, a proposal which eventually successfully passed.
Further protests have since taken place in Greece and elsewhere, have continued throughout 2011 and 2012,[37] including in Nigeriawith major large street clashes against the withdrawal of fuel subsidies. There was also a major protest in London by UK groups from across that country on 26 March 2011,[38] centred around a protest call initially made by the Trades Union Congress but subsequently involving many other groups. In general, the UK’s round of austerity measures, or “cuts”, from April 2011 onward are understood by most of the population to be, as an aggregated phenomenon, the worst withdrawal of public services since those services’ foundings, in the early 20th century and the post-World War II era. The coalition government currently in power in Britain repeatedly reassures the public that these public sector cuts will be replaced by a “Big Society” underpinned by charities, start-up businesses and private enterprise. Critics counter on the one hand that such a model is effective back-door privatisation, and on the other hand that even assuming the “Big Society” is a genuine populist initiative, it still fails conceptually, since the very charities and start-up businesses touted in this model are also the ones being severely slashed or eliminated by the new austerity-fuelled economics of the government.
Participants in more militant forms of protest engaged in during the 26th March demonstration, who in total only comprised 1,500 people out of the estimated 250,000-500,000 total participants, have been relentlessly attacked by the government as “mindless thugs”[39] with the UK’s mainstream media including the BBC generally supporting this perception. This remains the case even though the fundamental seriousness of damage thus far remains debatable; much reporting seems to have focused on the smashing of a Santander bank branch’s glass entranceway doors by largely anarchist activists, who would have also been behind the simultaneous destruction of several automated teller machines and the scrawling of “class war” in graffiti on neighbouring walls — rather than destruction of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, schools or homes that would have indisputably comprised terrorismby any objective measure. There are those who would therefore argue that the activists, even if misguided in their actions, still technically only targeted the institutions (i.e., banks) perceived responsible for the cuts, and did not cross the line into more general mayhem. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary Theresa May vociferously advocates the review by authorities of UK terrorism law to determine whether the Metropolitan Police can legally extend their own powers of arrest and detention using those provisions. Talk of the approximately 1,500 people involved in the militant aspects of the anti-cuts march almost totally eclipsed the more general event of up to half a million peaceable, albeit still angry, protesters who say they have very real, very personal grievances against the government’s cuts plans.
Economist Richard D. Wolff has stated that instead of cutting government programs and raising taxes, austerity should be attained by collecting from non-profitmultinational corporations, churches, and private tax-exempt institutions such as universities, which currently pay no taxes at all.[40] Groups like UK Uncut and the campaigners for a Robin Hood tax argue for a “tax the banks” strategy that is similar, as well as to argue that the banks and corporations severely underpay the taxes they already owe, and need to stop tax-dodging.
There are also those like Nobel PrizelaureatePaul Krugman, who argue that austerity measures tend to be counterproductive when applied to the populations and programs they are usually applied to.[41] This argument holds that austerity measures tend not to revitalize economies by ‘getting people off of benefits and back to work,’ and similar, but rather that austerity simply depresses economic growth wholesale, which ultimately causes governments to lose more money in tax revenues than they would have if they had not enacted the austerity and instead created jobs and new infrastructure and industries. In countries with already anemic economic growth, austerity can engender deflation which inflates existing debt. This can also cause the country to fall into a liquidity trap, causing credit markets to freeze up and unemployment to increase. Advocates of these positions point to cases in Ireland and Spain in which austerity measures instituted in response to financial crises in 2009 proved ineffective in combating public debt and the countries got in ever more dire financial straits as 2010 and 2011 progressed.[42]
The United States has ceded control of its affairs to international bureaucrats
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Alex Jones: “This represents absolute 100 per cent proof that the military industrial complex which runs the United States is under the control of foreign central banks who are imposing a military dictatorship.”
The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by DefenseSecretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.
During the hearing yesterday Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.
Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”
The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
“He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body,” a defense official told CNN.
However, this is not the first time that the authority of international bodies has been framed as being superior to the US Congress and the Constitution.
In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”
Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”
Panetta’s testimony that the US looks to obtain “international permission” before it acts, allied with Obama citing the UN as the supreme authority while trashing the power of Congress, prove that the United States has ceded control over its own affairs to unelected international bureaucrats, just as the countries of the European Union have done likewise.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
The Rubicon to the right of Cesena, at Pisciatello
The Rubicon (Latin: Rubicō, Italian: Rubicone) is a shallow river in northeasternItaly, about 80 kilometres long, running from the Apennine Mountains to the Adriatic Sea through the southern Emilia-Romagna region, between the towns of Rimini andCesena. The Latin word rubico comes from the adjective “rubeus”, meaning “red”. The river was so named because its waters are colored red by mud deposits. It was key to protecting Rome from Civil War.
During the Roman republic, the river Rubicon marked the boundary between theRoman province of Cisalpine Gaul to the north and Italy proper (controlled directly by Rome and its socii allies) to the south. Governors of Roman provinces were appointed promagistrates with imperium (roughly, “right to command”) in their province(s). The governor would then serve as the general of the Roman army within the territory of his province(s). Roman law specified that only the elected magistrates(consuls and praetors) could hold imperium within Italy. Any promagistrate who entered Italy at the head of his troops forfeited his imperium and was therefore no longer legally allowed to command troops.
Exercising imperium when forbidden by the law was a capital offence, punishable by death. Furthermore, obeying the commands of a general who did not legally possess imperium was also a capital offence. If a general entered Italy whilst exercising command of an army, both the general and his soldiers became outlaws and were automatically condemned to death. Generals were thus obliged to disband their armies before entering Italy.
In 49 BC, supposedly on January 10 of the Roman calendar, G. Julius Caesar led one legion, the Legio XIII Gemina, south over the Rubicon from Cisalpine Gaul to Italy to make his way to Rome. In doing so, he (deliberately) broke the law on imperium and made armed conflict inevitable. According to the historian Suetonius, Caesar uttered the famous phrase ālea iacta est (“the die has been cast”).[1] Caesar’s decision for swift action forced Pompey, the lawful consuls (G. Claudius Marcellus and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus), and a large part of theRoman Senate to flee Rome in fear. Caesar’s subsequent victory in Caesar’s civil war ensured that punishment for the infraction would never be rendered.
Suetonius’s account depicts Caesar as undecided as he approached the river, and attributes the crossing to a supernatural apparition. The phrase “crossing the Rubicon” has survived to refer to any individual or group committing itself irrevocably to a risky or revolutionary course of action, similar to the modern phrase “passing the point of no return“.
After Caesar’s crossing, the Rubicon was a geographical feature of note until EmperorAugustus abolished the Province of Gallia Cisalpina(today’s northern Italy) and the river ceased to be the extreme border line of Italy. The decision robbed the Rubicon of its importance, and the name gradually disappeared from the local toponymy.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, and during the first centuries of the Middle Ages, the coastal plain between Ravenna and Rimini was flooded many times. The Rubicon, as with other small rivers of the region, often changed its course during this period. For this reason, and to supply fields with water after the revival of agriculture in the late Middle Ages, during the 14th and 15th centuries, hydraulic works were built to prevent other floods and to regulate streams. As a result of this work, these rivers eventually started flowing in straight courses, as they do today.
With the revival of interest in the topography of ancient Roman Italy during the 15th century, the matter of identifying the Rubicon in the contemporary landscape became a topic of debate among Renaissance humanists.[2] To support the claim of the Pisciatello, a spurious inscription forbidding the passage of an army in the name of the Roman people and Senate, the so-called Sanctio, was placed by a bridge on that river. The Quattrocento humanist Flavio Biondo was taken in by it;[3] the actual inscription is conserved in the Museo Archeologico, Cesena.[4] As the centuries went by, several rivers of Italian Adriatic coast between Ravenna and Rimini have at times been said to correspond to the ancient Rubicon.
The Via Aemilia (National Road N°9) still follows its original Roman course as it runs between hills and plain; it would have been the obvious course to follow as it was the only major Roman road east of the Apennine Mountains leading to and from the Po Valley. Attempts to deduce the original flow of the Rubicon can be done only by studying written documents and other archaeological evidence such as Roman milestones, which indicate the distance between the ancient river and the nearest Roman towns.
It is important to underline that the starting point of a Roman road (some kind of “mile zero”), from which distances were counted, was always the crossing between the Cardo and the Decumanus, the two principal streets in every Roman town, running north-south and east-west, respectively. In a section of the Tabula Peutingeriana, an ancient document showing the network of Roman roads, a river in north-eastern Italy labeled “fl. Rubico” is marked at a position 12 Roman miles (18 km) north of Rimini along the coastline; 18 km is the distance between Rimini and a place called “Ad Confluentes”, drawn west of the Rubicon, on the Via Aemilia.
In 1933, after various efforts spanning centuries, the river now called Fiumicino, crossing the town of Savignano di Romagna (now Savignano sul Rubicone), was officially identified as the former Rubicon. The final proof confirming this theory came only in 1991,[5] when three Italian scholars (Pignotti, Ravagli, and Donati), after a comparison between the Tabula Peutingeriana and other ancient sources (including Cicero), showed that the distance running from Rome to the Rubicon river was 320 km. Key elements of their work are:
The locality of San Giovanni in Compito (now a western quarter of Savignano) has to be identified with the old Ad Confluentes (“compito” means confluence of roads and it is synonymous with “confluentes”)
The distance between Ad Confluentes and Rome, according to the Tabula Peutingeriana, is 320 km
The distance from today’s San Giovanni in Compito and the Fiumicino river is 1 Roman mile (1.48 km)
Today there is very little evidence of Caesar’s historical passage. Savignano sul Rubicone is an industrial town and the river has become one of the most polluted in the Emilia-Romagna region. Exploitation of underground waters along the upper course of the Rubicon has reduced its flow—it was a minor river even during Roman times (“parvi Rubiconis ad undas” as Lucan said, roughly translated “to the waves of [the] tiny Rubicon”)—and has since lost its natural route, except in its upper course between low and woody hills.
A coup d’état (English: /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, French: [ku deta]; plural: coups d’état; translation: strike (against the) state, literally: strike/blow of state)—also known as a coup, putsch,andoverthrow—is the sudden, illegal deposition of a government,[1][2][3][4] usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds if the usurpers establish their dominance when the incumbent government fails to prevent or successfully resist their consolidation of power. If the coup neither fully fails nor achieves overall success, the attempted coup d’état is likely to lead to a civil war.
Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coupconsists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.
Although the coup d’état has featured in politics since antiquity, the phrase is of relatively recent coinage;[5] the Oxford Dictionary identifies it as a French expression meaning a “stroke of State”. Prof. Thomas Childers, of the University of Pennsylvania, indicates that the English language’s lacking a word denoting the sudden, violent change of government derives from England’s stable political traditions and institutions. French and German history are coloured with such politico-military actions.
Since the unsuccessful coups d’état of Wolfgang Kapp in 1920 (the Kapp Putsch), the Swiss German word Putsch (pronounced [ˈpʊtʃ]; coined for the Züriputsch of 1839) also denotes the same politico-military actions: in Metropolitan France, putsch denoted the 1942 and 1961 anti-government attacks in Algiers, and the 1991 August Putsch in the USSR; the German equivalent is Staatsstreich (the German literal translation of coup d’état), yet a putsch is not always a coup d’état, for example, the Beer Hall Putsch was by politicians without military support.
Usage of the phrase
Linguistically, coup d’état denotes a “stroke of state” (French: coup [stroke] d’ [of] État [state]).[6] Analogously, the looser, quotidian usage means “gaining advantage on a rival”, (intelligence coup, boardroom coup). Politically, a coup d’état is a usually violent political engineering, which affects who rules in the government, without radical changes in the form of the government, the political system. Tactically, a coup d’état involves control, by an active minority of military usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) military’s possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country’s key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure. It is to be noted that in the latest years there has been a broad use of the phrase in mass media, which may contradict the legal definition of coup d’état.
The Pronunciamiento (Pronouncement) is a Spanish and Latin American type of coup d’état. The coup d’état (called golpe de estado in Spanish) was more common in Spain and South America, while the Pronunciamiento was more common in Central America. ThePronunciamiento is the formal explanation for deposing the regnant government, justifying the installation of the new government that was effected with the golpe de estado. The difference between a coup and a pronunciamento is that in the former, a military faction deposes the civilian government and assumes power, in the latter, the military depose the civil government and install another civil government.[7]
Coups d’état are common in Africa; between 1952 and 2000, thirty-three countries experienced 85 such depositions. Western Africa had most of them, 42; most were against civil regimes; 27 were against military regimes; and only in five were the deposed incumbents killed.[8]Moreover, as a change-of-government method, the incidence of the coup d’état has declined worldwide, because usually, the threat of one suffices to effect the change of government; the military do not usually assume power, but install a civil leader acceptable to them. The political advantage is the appearance of legitimacy, examples are the collapse of the French Fourth Republic, and the change of government effected in Mauritania, on 3 August 2005, while the president was in Saudi Arabia.
Types
The political scientist Samuel P. Huntington identifies three classes of coup d’état:
Guardian coup d’état: the “musical chairs” coup d’état. The stated aim of such a coup is usually improving public order and efficiency, and ending corruption. There usually is no fundamental change to the power structure. Generally, the leaders portray their actions as a temporary and unfortunate necessity. An early example is the coup d’état by consul Sulla, in 88 B.C., against supporters of Marius inRome, after the latter attempted to strip him of a military command. A contemporary instance is the civilian Prime Minister of PakistanZulfikar Ali Bhutto‘s overthrow by Chief of Army Staff General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, who cited widespread civil disorder and impending civil war as his justification. In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the same grounds. Nations with guardian coups can frequently shift back and forth between civilian and military governments. Example countries include Pakistan, Turkey (1971 and 1980), and Thailand. A bloodless coup usually arises from the Guardian coup d’état.
Veto coup d’état: occurs when the army vetoes the people’s mass participation and social mobilisation in governing themselves. In such a case, the army confronts and suppresses large-scale, broad-based civil opposition, tending to repression and killing, such as the coup d’état in Chile in 1973 against the elected Socialist President Salvador Allende Gossens by the Chilean military. The same happened inArgentina throughout the period 1930-1983. The 20 July 1944 plot by parts of the German military to overthrow the elected National Socialist government of Adolf Hitler in Germany is an example of a failed veto coup d’état.[citation needed]
A coup d’état is typed according to the military rank of the lead usurper.
The veto coup d’état and the guardian coup d’état are effected by the army’s commanding officers.
The breakthrough coup d’état is effected by junior officers (colonels or lower rank) or non-commissioned officers (sergeants). When junior officers or enlisted men so seize power, the coup d’état is a mutiny with grave implications for the organizational and professional integrity of the military.
The self-coup denotes an incumbent government — aided and abetted by the military — assuming extra-constitutional powers. A historical example is President, then Emperor, Louis Napoléon Bonaparte. Modern examples include Alberto Fujimori, in Peru, who, although elected, temporarily suspended the legislature and the judiciary in 1992, becoming an authoritarian ruler, and King Gyanendra‘s assumption of “emergency powers” in Nepal. Another form of self-coup is when a government, having been defeated in an election, refuses to step down.
Resistance to coups d’état
Many coups d’état, even if initially successful in seizing the main centres of state power, are actively opposed by certain segments of society or by the international community. Opposition can take many different forms, including an attempted counter-coup by sections of the armed forces, international isolation of the new regime, and military intervention.
Sometimes opposition takes the form of civil resistance, in which the coup is met with mass demonstrations from the population generally, and disobedience among civil servants and members of the armed forces. Cases in which civil resistance played a significant part in defeating armed coups d’état include: the Kornilov Putsch in Russia in August 1917; the Kapp Putsch in Berlin in March 1920; and the Generals’ Revolt in Algiers in April 1961.[9] The coup in the Soviet Union on 19–21 August 1991 is another case in which civil resistance was part of an effective opposition to a coup: Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, stood on top of a tank in the centre of Moscow and urged people to refuse co-operation with the coup.
Post-military-coup governments
After the coup d’état, the military face the matter of what type of government to establish. In Latin America, it was common for the post-coup government to be led by a junta, a committee of the chiefs of staff of the armed forces. A common form of African post-coup government is the revolutionary assembly, a quasi-legislative body elected by the army. In Pakistan, the military leader typically assumes the title of chiefmartial law administrator.
According to Huntington, most leaders of a coup d’état act under the concept of right orders: they believe that the best resolution of the country’s problems is merely to issue correct orders. This view of government underestimates the difficulty of implementing government policy, and the degree of political resistance to certain correct orders. It presupposes that everyone who matters in the country shares a single, common interest, and that the only question is how to pursue that single, common interest.
Current leaders who assumed power via coups d’état
** Both Jammeh and Bozizé were subsequently confirmed in office by apparently free and fair elections.[15][16] The election confirming Jammeh was marked by repression of the free press and the opposition.[17] An opposition leader described the outcome as a “sham”.[17]
Steve Jobs attempted management coups twice at Apple Inc.; first in 1985 when he unsuccessfully tried to oust John Sculley and then again in 1997 which successfully forced Gil Amelio to resign.[22][23]
^Coup d’etat Definition from Auburn U. Quote: A quick and decisive extra-legal seizure of governmental power by a relatively small but highly organized group of political or military leaders…
^ Edward Luttwak, Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, Harvard University Press, 1969, 1980. ISBN 0-674-17547-6.
^ George Klay Kieh, Jr. and Pita Ogaba Agbese (eds.), The Military and Politics in Africa, Ashgate Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0754618765, pp. 44–5.
^Adam Roberts, ‘Civil Resistance to Military Coups’, Journal of Peace Research, Oslo, vol. 12, no. 1, 1975, pp. 19-36, covers these and some other cases.
ANTINEWWORLDORDERPARTY (NY) – It’s being reported that President Obama and the first lady will be hosting the movies Red Tails at theWhite House with the legendary Tuskegee Airmen, African-American fighter pilots during World War II. Also the cast and crew members of the movie will in attendance.
The screening of the military movie will end the day for the president who is scheduled to hold meetings with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The screening of the movie will end the day the president Obama is going to hold meetings with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
We are hopping that after Obama see’s this true to life film and talks with real American hero’s that he will have a change of heart about going to war with Iran. We hope that someone talks some sense into him to stop WW3 before it gets started! The last thing this world needs is another war!
What we do need is more brotherly love Like Jesus Said in Matthew 5
“1And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Jesus Christ
Seven Minute Clip of George Lucas’ ‘Red Tails‘ Arrives 13 hours ago | Fandango · Lucas: Hollywood Won’t Make An All-black Big-budget Movie 16 hours ago …
Directed by Anthony Hemingway . Starring Nate Parker , David Oyelowo , Ne-Yo .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpA6TC0T_LwJul 29, 2011 – 3 min – Uploaded by movieclipsTRAILERS
First Public Promotional Trailer for the feature film RED TAILS. 1944. World War II rages and the fate of the free …
Red Tails is an upcoming 2012 action drama film directed by Anthony Hemingway, from a screenplay by John Ridley and Aaron McGruder. The story, written by …
Red Tails Movie – Up to date info and exclusive content regarding “Red Tails” movie. – Directed By: Anthony Hemingway – Plot Outline: 1944. To help win the war …
WASHINGTON (AP) – It’s a night at the movies for President Obama and the first … Tuskegee Airmen along with cast and crew members of the movie Red Tails, …
Red Tails. Red_Tails movie poster. Release Date: January 20, 2012. Studio: 20th Century Fox, Lucasfilm Director: Anthony Hemingway Screenwriter: John …
1944. As the war in Europe continues to take its toll on Allied forces, the Pentagon brass has no recourse but to consider unorthodox options – including the …