Monday, July 12, 2010

firing up Hillary's supporters

A man was stopped in traffic just outside the Lincoln Tunnel, so he asked a passerby what the problem up was. He was told that some terrorists had captured Hillary Clinton and were threatening to douse her with gasoline and set her on fire if they didn't get a million dollars. He asked how much has been collected so far and was told, "About fifty gallons."

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Addicted to the Warfare State


Addicted to the Warfare State
by William Norman Grigg

Which is the more serious threat to life, liberty and property: The illicit violence practiced by a handful of furtive armed drug smugglers in the Arizona desert, or the increasingly brazen militarization of U.S. law enforcement – across the entire country – in the "war on drugs"?

According to some hyperventilating commentators, drug smugglers – with the guilty acquiescence of Barack Obama – have seized control of a huge swath of Arizona, thereby asserting alien sovereignty over what was once American soil. If this were true, points out libertarian journalist (and Arizona resident) J.D. Tuccille, the narcotics lords would preside over a kingdom "populated by rattlesnakes and cholla."

What has actually happened is a minor but politically exploitable increase in criminal activity in one of the many drug smuggling corridors that have long existed in the southwest, channels of illicit commerce created in order to serve a huge market that persists despite decades of prohibition.

While Mexican bandits supposedly exercise dominion over reptiles and cacti, National Guard units throughout the country are actively involved in transforming nominally civilian law enforcement agencies into a full-blown domestic army of occupation. Last year, according to Albany, New York Fox affiliate WXXA, the New York State National Guard "assisted in more than 2,000 arrests ... and had almost $150 million in drug, property, and weapon seizures."

While they do engage in the occasional isolated shoot-out, the drug gangs supposedly controlling a section of Arizona aren't terrorizing innocent families in late-night or early-morning armed raids. Nor are they detaining – and sometimes killing – motorists at checkpoints. They're not plundering people in roadside shakedowns. Criminal violence of that kind is carried out every day by police – often with hands-on military assistance – as part of the "war on drugs."

According to Col. Alden Saddlemire of the New York National Guard, the martial language used to describe this domestic campaign is literal, not metaphorical. "The war on drugs is an ongoing war," Saddlemire told WXXA. "It's a domestic fight [we] firmly believe in."

According to official propaganda, the National Guard Counterdrug Program (NGCDP) "operates in all 54 states and territories to support local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies..... [The program] currently operates 125 OH-58 Kiowa helicopters to support federal, state and local Law Enforcement Agencies' demand for aviation support in Counterdrug operations."

Guard pilots and support personnel are actively involved in "area surveillance and reconnaissance; vehicle/fugitive surveillance and tracking, cover/force protection during RAID/Sweeps" and cannabis eradication operations.

One must hack through a dense thicket of acronyms in order to uncover what's really happening here. The NGCDP – that's National Guard Counterdrug Program – "recently realigned CD RAID Detachments into Security and Support Battalions," the mystified reader is told without being informed that "CD RAID" refers to Counter-Drug Recon and Aerial Interdiction Detachments.

We then learn that although "mission focus" remains on "LEA support to CD operations" – that is, assisting Law Enforcement Agencies carry out Counter-Drug programs – "HLS/HLD missions will take on a larger role than before." That singularly opaque clause refers to Homeland Security/Homeland Defense operations.

Deprived of semantic camouflage, this is an admission that the escalation of the military's role in the "war on drugs" will segue into larger, and increasingly overt, domestic military role in "homeland security."

The NGCDP is eager to dispense all kinds of military hardware – complete with "technical support" personnel – on any "civilian" law enforcement agency that puts in a request.

You want night vision goggles? Forward-Looking Infrared gear (which was used to such dramatic effect in the murderous final assault on the Branch Davidians)? Thermal imagers, surveillance aircraft, mobile gamma-ray automobile inspection units? Just give the National Guard a holler, and they'll be happy to help.

Sure, this means some swivel-hipping around that pesky Posse Comitatus Act, but it's pretty much a dead letter anyway.

Once the Guard is seamlessly integrated into the domestic counter-drug effort, they'll be ready to carry out whatever other homeland security missions that arise: mass arrests of protesters and perfectly harmless civilians during political conventions, confiscation of firearms during disasters or other emergencies, or even – as Gen. George S. Patton once recommended – the use of total war tactics (summary mass detentions, summary executions of conspicuous troublemakers, the use of toxic gas and white phosphorous munitions) against organized dissident groups.

All of this has been done already, on a limited scale and in specific circumstances. Because of the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror," the infrastructure is now in place to institutionalize those once-exceptional abuses, if – make that "when" – our self-appointed rulers choose to do so.

Some who are properly alarmed over all of this have invested their hopes in Sheriff Richard Mack's campaign to educate and mobilize county sheriffs to resist federal usurpation of state and local authority. Sheriff Mack is an admirable man, and his campaign is worthwhile – but too many sheriffs have already been bought off by the Feds.

One example among many is Sheriff Tom Bosenko of California's Shasta County, who allocated $340,000 to create a special marijuana suppression unit.

Paul Babeu, the Sheriff of Arizona's Pinal County, has pioneered a new approach to federalizing local law enforcement: He has actually invited the Feds to occupy Arizona on the pretext of defending the state from the illegal immigrant "invasion."

Sheriff Babeu – a PR-fixated political ally of arch-neocon John McCain – is consciously carving out a media-friendly persona as the heir to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It was Babeu who induced a paroxysm of populist outrage by declaring that the Obama administration had effectively surrendered a swath of Arizona to Mexico.

"It's literally out of control," Babeu insisted in an interview with Fox News. "We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico."

Pinal County – Sheriff Babeu's jurisdiction – is well inside the border with Mexico. Pima County, which actually shares a border with Mexico, is the responsibility of Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who also takes a hard line on immigration enforcement but doesn't share Babeu's siege mentality or appetite for media attention.

Sheriff Dupnik is one of several Arizona law enforcement veterans who believe that the problems associated with illegal immigration are being inflated into a politically useful "crisis."

Retired Mesa police officer Bill Richardson, who worked in counter-narcotics task forces in several Arizona counties, believes that Babeu – like Arpaio and Arizona state senator Russell Pearce (chief sponsor of SB 1070) – is "fanning the flames of fear, that the undocumented are the root cause of crime in Arizona. In fact, they are not."

Whether or not this assessment is accurate, both immigration (legal and illegal) and violent crime have been steadily decreasing in Arizona over the past decade – a period encompassing Babeu's entire law enforcement career.

Richardson, a long-time Arizona resident with decades of law enforcement experience, points out that Babeu – who relocated to Arizona after losing a mayoral race in North Adams, Massachusetts in 2001 – was a police officer in Chandler for just 5 1/2 years (during which time he served as head of the local police union) before being elected Pima County Sheriff.

Two of those years were spent in National Guard deployments – one of them in Iraq, the other on the southern border as part of a joint effort with the Border Patrol called "Operation Jump Start."

Babeu, who enlisted at 21 and currently holds the rank of Major in the National Guard, often campaigned in uniform as a perennial Republican political candidate in Massachusetts. He was successful once, winning a spot on the Berkshire County Commission and a leadership role in the County GOP.

After three unsuccessful bids for higher office, Babeu followed his parents (long-time Republican activists themselves) to Arizona, which had a more congenial political climate. (Joe Arpaio, interestingly, is likewise a transplanted Massachusetts native.)

Babeu, who refers to McCain as his "hero," is hard-wired into the neo-con-dominated Republican media apparatus, and he clearly has aspirations above and beyond his current position.

Just as importantly, 41-year-old Babeu – who is both a county sheriff and a National Guard major – literally embodies the ongoing merger of the military and law enforcement. He is the fons et origo of the notion that Obama, in an act of high treason, surrendered sacred American soil to Mexican drug gangs – which isn't strictly true, of course, but is irresistibly potent to political opportunists.

Immigration, Babeu insists, "is the number one issue that faces Arizona." This could be considered the truth in the sense that it is the most useful issue for candidates looking to build a political career, and opportunistic incumbents – including Senator McCain, who once supported amnesty for illegal immigrants but has re-cast himself as a flint-eyed border guardian in his ongoing re-election campaign.

As the current issue of Harper's magazine documents, the most serious problems besetting Arizona have little if anything to do with immigration, and everything to do with the most recent Federal Reserve-engineered depression.

J.D. Tuccille points out that concern over immigration is most pronounced in Phoenix, rather than in the southern part of the state. Phoenix somehow survived the immigrant onslaught, but it may be doomed as a result of the collapse of the housing bubble.

Ken Silverstein of Harper's points out that 61.5 percent of all Phoenix mortgages are "underwater," and unemployment is probably running at about 18 percent or higher. The latter figure can't be explained as a case of immigrants "stealing" jobs from natives, since the housing implosion led to a dramatic contraction of the immigrant labor pool.

Forty-five minutes southwest of Phoenix there's a town called Maricopa that didn't exist ten years ago: It was created at the height of the Fed-induced housing frenzy. It's quite possible that Maricopa won't exist a decade from now: It was a town built entirely on fraud.

"They weren't building homes," explains the consistently quotable Jay Butler, an associate professor of real estate at Arizona State University. "They were building mortgages that they could put into mortgage-backed securities in order to sell them to investors in China and France." Amid a pervasive atmosphere of moral hazard, mortgage loans were extended to practically anybody with a pulse and the ability sign the necessary documents. The results were utterly predictable.

Four years ago in Maricopa, speculators were buying whole tracts of houses and builders were demanding a 12-hour turnaround on permits in order to meet existing demand. Today, that future ghost town registers a "distress index" (percentage of home sales involving bank-owned or pre-foreclosure properties) of 76.8 percent.

"In a neighborhood called Maricopa Meadows," writes Ken Silverstein, "we rolled past a block of McMansions, all but a handful of which had gone into foreclosure." Silverstein's guide observed: "You've got people doubling up in houses so they can split utilities.... The story is the same from here to Queen Creek to Buckeye, in all these places that people scattered before the crash."

As the New York Times recently reported, the real estate industry in Arizona is now essentially a subsidiary of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are entirely non-viable tax-subsidized entities sitting on more than $4 trillion worth of bad debts.

When the Fed's bubble was expanding, Realtors sold homes to unqualified buyers at grotesquely inflated prices. Now that the bubble has burst, Realtors in are doing a similarly brisk business in repossessions. Given the dim prospects for an economic rebound, it's profoundly doubtful that many of those homes will ever be re-sold. And the coming commercial real estate crash will be at least as devastating for Arizona, a "branch office" state with little local industry apart from agriculture.

As her state descends into economic ruin, Governor Jan Brewer – hailed by Republican conservatives nation-wide as a heroine for signing SB 1070 – is working diligently to impose a drastic sales tax increase on the state. Borrowing a familiar leftist trope, Brewer has claimed that people will "die" unless the regressive tax increase is enacted in the midst of a deepening economic contraction.

As Governor, Brewer (who, like Babeu, is allied with McCain) has done nothing to reduce the size and expense of the state government. The timely and welcome distraction provided by the controversy over SB 1070, notes Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner, saved Brewer "from a nasty primary challenge" arising from her $3 billion sales tax increase. Some opinion polls now place Brewer just five points behind President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 match-up – solely on the strength of her perceived role as a proponent of "secure borders."

Brewer's reputation was enhanced by an open letter to Obama in which Brewer demanded a "border surge" involving at least 6,000 troops. And it wasn't noticeably injured when she made the risible claim that the "majority" of illegal immigrants are working as "mules" in the employ of drug cartels – a claim immediately and decisively shot down by T.J. Bonner of the National Border Patrol Council.

Displaying gallantry through heroic understatement, Bonner said that Brewer's demented claim "doesn't comport with reality." This isn't surprising, given that Brewer and her allies aren't in the reality business. Like narcotics pushers, they're in the business of promoting altered states of consciousness for profit – such as the perception that Arizona is about to be devoured in a Mexican anschluss.

Brewer persisted in her reality-aversive treatment of the immigration issue by repeatedly making the horrifying and entirely unsubstantiated claim that illegal immigrants had committed "beheadings" in Arizona.

"We cannot afford all this illegal immigration and everything that comes with it, everything from the crime and to the drugs and the kidnappings and the extortion and the beheadings," stated Brewer in an interview with Fox News. While it's true that some drug-related murders in Mexico have involved beheading, there's not been a single documented case of that kind in Arizona. This didn't deter Brewer from reiterating that claim – citing unspecified "law enforcement agencies" as sources – in a subsequent interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTbbIinH8Is&feature=player_embedded

Following up on those interviews, the Arizona Guardian reported that six county medical examiners, including four from border counties, "say they have never heard of such attacks." In other words, this is another terrifying claim that doesn't "comport with reality." It is, however, extremely useful for Brewer's brand of what Mencken described as "practical politics" – "keep[ing] the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

If Brewer and her allies were interested in reality-based solutions to narcotics-related violent crime, they would agitate for the repeal of drug prohibition and an end to the subsidies and military aid to Mexico that are fueling the narcotics wars in that country. Instead, they're doing their considerable best to keep their constituents hopelessly addicted to the domestic warfare state.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w157.html

Can America Afford an Empire?


The Goal Is Freedom
Can America Afford an Empire?
Too late to heed Madison's warning?
by Sheldon Richman
Posted July 09, 2010

Fiscally speaking, the U.S. government has been running a disorderly house for some time. That makes the fiscal crisis in Greece an uneasy portent for Americans (as Steven Horwitz points out here).

Just contemplate some of the numbers. The total federal debt is nearly $13 trillion, $8.6 trillion of which is held by the public (with the rest held by government entities). (These are conservative estimates, since many government obligations are not counted.) GDP is something over $14 trillion. That ratio of debt to GDP isn't pretty. "The CBO estimates that at the end of 2020 publicly held debt will be a staggering $20.3 trillion ­ 90 percent of GDP ­ with total debt being notably higher than that," Horwitz writes.

As for the budget deficit, the Congressional Budget Office projects it to exceed a trillion dollars this year and next, bringing it into the neighborhood of 10 percent of GDP. This comes on top of a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion ­ the government spent a buck-ninety for every dollar it collected. The deficit is projected to fall in the years following 2011, before resuming its growth in 2015 and beyond. By 2018 it will be back over $1 trillion, assuming these estimates are not wildly optimistic. Remember, ObamaCare has not kicked in yet.

According to the CBO, the Obama administration will create $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

Compare with Greece: Its accumulated debt is 113 percent of GDP, and its budget deficit last year was 12.7 percent of GDP. Greece needed to sell bonds to obtain the money to pay debts come due, but lenders were too nervous to lend the money at rates the Greek government can handle. So Greece needed a bailout in the form of cheaper loans from the European Union and International Monetary Fund ( a k a American taxpayers), conditioned on budget austerity (spending cuts and tax increases), which in turn incited violent street demonstrations by government employees, who have benefited from high deficit spending for years.

If we want to avoid the Greek experience, which could spread to other EU countries in the future, the U.S. fiscal house will have to be put in order. Contrary to what the policy elite is thinking, this does not mean raising taxes, which would impede economic activity and make conditions worse.

So if the deficit is to be eliminated it will have to be through dramatic budget cutting. In the current fiscal year the federal government is planning to spend $3.55 trillion. Among the largest categories of spending are Social Security (19.63 percent); unemployment/welfare/other "mandatory" spending (16.13 percent); Medicare (12.79 percent); Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (8.19 percent); and interest on the national debt (4.63 percent).

Of course I've left out a category, but it's one often ignored by deficit hawks: the Department of Defense. It comes in at 18.74 percent of the budget, or $663.7 billion. (More about this number  below.)  For some context, the 2009 Pentagon budget was almost as much as the rest of the world's military spending combined.


More than a Trillion

For fiscal 2011 President Obama has asked Congress to appropriate $719 billion for the Pentagon, a 4.5 percent increase over  the current year. But as Robert Higgs points out, "few appreciate that the total amount of all defense-related spending greatly exceeds the amount budgeted for the Department of Defense."

Writing about the 2009 Defense Department budget of $636.5 billion, Higgs states: "Lodged elsewhere in the budget, however, other lines identify funding that serves defense purposes just as surely as­sometimes even more surely than­the money allocated to the Department of Defense. On occasion, commentators take note of some of these additional defense-related budget items, such as the Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons program, but many such items, including some extremely large ones, remain generally unrecognized."

Those other items include the departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, and programs within the Energy, Justice, and State departments. Higgs also calculated the share of the interest on the debt attributable to past Pentagon spending: "Adding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $1,027.8 billion, which is 61.5 percent greater than the Pentagon's outlays alone."

The grand total will be well above a trillion dollars in the current fiscal year also.

"Owing to the financial debacle and the ongoing recession," Higgs sums up, "millions are out of work, millions are losing their homes, and private earnings remain well below their previous peak, but in the military-industrial complex, the gravy train speeds along the track faster and faster."


Worldwide Presence

It's no mystery why so much is spent on the military. The U.S. government maintains close to a thousand military bases around the world and is engaging in two foreign occupations, not to mention less formal campaigns in Pakistan and elsewhere, including covert operations that never make the papers. This costs money. The Iraq and Afghan occupations consume over $12 billion a month. USA Today reports that the Pentagon has spent $620 billion on the Iraq invasion and occupation, America's longest military adventure ever, and more than $190 billion on the operation in Afghanistan. Other estimates are higher, as much as $300 billion for Afghanistan, according to U.S. News and World Report. More spending has just been approved in Congress.

The fiscal question is whether, in the face of the huge national debt and multiyear trillion-dollar budget deficits, we can afford a "defense" establishment more befitting an empire than a republic. That's not the only question, however. We must also ask if a society that claims to value free enterprise can long endure the economic disfigurement that inevitably accompanies a large military-industrial complex?

Small-government men from Richard Cobden to William Graham Sumner to Robert Taft would have said no, as does their political heir, Ron Paul, today. As for whether slashing military spending would deny us needed protection, one could as well ask whether we are safe today with policies that risk "blowback," bankruptcy, and monetary disarray.

One cannot help but conclude that James Madison had it right:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.




http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/afford-empire/

**JP** Islamic wallpapers



 

early Islamic transgressions - the slave trade

When Morocco ruled the waves

Giles Milton uncovers a striking story of the 18th-century white slave trade, but fails to place it in a wider context in White Gold

White Gold by Giles MiltonBuy White Gold at Amazon.co.uk

White Gold
by Giles Milton
Hodder & Stoughton £18.99, pp316

Giles Milton's lively account of the north African white slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries includes a description of an attack on a Cornish fishing village by a fleet of Islamic corsairs. The warriors, wielding scimitars, stream into the cobbled streets and force their way into cottages, taverns and churches to seize the villagers and carry them off to the Moroccan port of Salé to be sold as slaves. It is a shocking event and one that challenges the dominant historical narrative of England's proud seafaring past.

Milton has made his name by retrieving such lost episodes and writing them back into the history books. In Nathaniel's Nutmeg, he examined the role of Nathaniel Courthope, a lieutenant of the East India Company, in the 17th-century conflict between England and the Netherlands for control of the spice islands of south east Asia. And in Samurai William, he recounted the life of William Adams, an English sailor who washed up on the shores of Japan in 1600 and was responsible for opening relations between the two countries.

In White Gold, as in the earlier books, Milton focuses his historical disquisitions through the extraordinary story of one protagonist. Thomas Pellow was just 11 when, in the summer of 1715, he was seized from a Cornish cargo vessel in the Atlantic and sold as a slave to Sultan Moulay Ismail in the Moroccan city of Meknes.

Yet it is Moulay Ismail, not Pellow, who emerges as the most compelling character in the book. A brutal but quixotic ruler, he was a dandy given to indicating his mood by the colour of his clothes. 'Green is his darling colour, which is a good omen for those who come to him,' wrote one of the European padres stationed in Meknes. 'When he wears yellow, all men quake and avoid his presence; for that is the colour he puts on when he designs his bloody executions.'

Moulay Ismail was also a fervent follower of Koranic teaching. Devotion to Islam was greatly admired in Morocco, but it was, apparently, the source of growing consternation in the Christian West. 'It curbs none of his passions and justifies all his enormities,' wrote the same European padre, '[and] sanctifies the cruelties he exercises towards the Christians and the Moors.'

Milton boldly claims that Moulay Ismail provoked 'a growing backlash against Islam in almost every nation in Europe'. But this goes largely uncorroborated since he never actually investigates the state of relations between the Christian and Muslim worlds during the period.

This inattention to a broader historical context is characteristic of the book. Milton neither compares the North African trade in white slaves to the black slave trade, nor examines the disjunction between English ships' vulnerability to capture by corsairs and the standard orthodoxy of English maritime might. He prefers to scrutinise this loose strand of history than weave it back into the larger fabric.

Drawing on letters, journals and manuscripts written by the slaves, as well as European padres and ambassadors, Milton has produced a disturbing account of the barbaric splendour of the imperial Moroccan court, which he brings to life with considerable panache. For all its omissions, White Gold is an engrossing, expertly told story.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.