Category Archives: Mark Crispin Miller

Are You On the List or Are You Living In A World of Happy Dreams? Plus John Perkins.

A Special Everyone Who Reads This Site is Part of the 8 Million Main Corp List Due to Be Rounded Up After the Current Administration’s Manufactured “Crisis” Around the Internets

Some of the ads over at Atrios are kind of right wing, with the worst being the Pro McCain ads. Here’s an ad (that I borrowed) that’s more on point although I don’t think Atrios has ever written about the shocking writings of John Perkins. I don’t know why he can’t. Short version: before we murder the leaders of countries who don’t play IMF ball we try to persuade them with bribes. John Perkins is the guy who offered the “Or Else” bribe. Read or watch all about it here and here. Related: Recent Ellsberg observation that we prefer dictators over democracies if that isn’t patently obvious by now.

Okay, on the something big is up and they’re planning to send everyone away who doesn’t play ball front, we have two important stories. One, the US Government has a list of 8 million “troublemakers” who they would round up in case of what, I strongly suspect, would be a manufactured shock. After all, the people who conjured the shock have probably imagineered the aftermath.

Here’s a scary bit of that:

Under law, during a national emergency, FEMA and its parent organization, the Department of Homeland Security, would be empowered to seize private and public property, all forms of transport, and all food supplies. The agency could dispatch military commanders to run state and local governments, and it could order the arrest of citizens without a warrant, holding them without trial for as long as the acting government deems necessary. From the comfortable perspective of peaceful times, such behavior by the government may seem far-fetched. But it was not so very long ago that FDR ordered 120,000 Japanese Americans—everyone from infants to the elderly—be held in detention camps for the duration of World War II. This is widely regarded as a shameful moment in U.S. history, a lesson learned. But a long trail of federal documents indicates that the possibility of large-scale detention has never quite been abandoned by federal authorities. Around the time of the 1968 race riots, for instance, a paper drawn up at the U.S. Army War College detailed plans for rounding up millions of “militants” and “American negroes,” who were to be held at “assembly centers or relocation camps.” In the late 1980s, the Austin American-Statesman and other publications reported the existence of 10 detention camp sites on military facilities nationwide, where hundreds of thousands of people could be held in the event of domestic political upheaval. More such facilities were commissioned in 2006, when Kellogg Brown & Root—then a subsidiary of Halliburton—was handed a $385 million contract to establish “temporary detention and processing capabilities” for the Department of Homeland Security. The contract is short on details, stating only that the facilities would be used for “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs.” Just what those “new programs” might be is not specified.

Not scared yet? How about this.

These days, it’s rare to hear a voice like that of Senator Frank Church, who in the 1970s led the explosive investigations into U.S. domestic intelligence crimes that prompted the very reforms now being eroded. “The technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny,” Church pointed out in 1975. “And there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know.”
UPDATE: Since this article went to press, several documents have emerged to suggest the story has longer legs than we thought. Most troubling among these is an October 2001 Justice Department memo that detailed the extra-constitutional powers the U.S. military might invoke during domestic operations following a terrorist attack. In the memo, John Yoo, then deputy assistant attorney general, “concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.” (Yoo, as most readers know, is author of the infamous Torture Memo that, in bizarro fashion, rejiggers the definition of “legal” torture to allow pretty much anything short of murder.) In the October 2001 memo, Yoo refers to a classified DOJ document titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.” According to the Associated Press, “Exactly what domestic military action was covered by the October memo is unclear. But federal documents indicate that the memo relates to the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program.” Attorney General John Mukasey last month refused to clarify before Congress whether the Yoo memo was still in force.

Meanwhile, congressional sources tell Radar that Congressman Peter DeFazio has apparently abandoned his effort to get to the bottom of the White House COG classified annexes. Penny Dodge, DeFazio’s chief of staff, says otherwise. “We will be sending a letter requesting a classified briefing soon,” she told Radar this week.

Okay, go read the whole scarier than Clive Barker thing. Then, or two, combine it with these two vids by Mark Crispin Miller. Scary scary stuff as Count Floyd used to say. (Did you catch the West Mifflin reference from Pittsburgher Joe Flaherty?) Short version: if the republicans can’t get McCain within 10 points in order to steal an election then this administration would probably cancel that election with a manufactured shock. Why would they do this: because they’re guilty of war crimes and possibly breaking every meaningful law that we have. They simply know no bounds when it comes to evil. Remember: the Bush/Cheney crew stole two presidential elections and murdered up to a million Iraqis and counting in order to steal their oil. These are bad bad people. Worst ever, possibly.

From Mark:

There’s no doubt that the GOP is in big trouble, facing catastrophic losses in the House and Senate this November. But if you believe that Bush and Cheney will observe the law and honor the traditions of American democracy, and therefore let themselves be forced from power, you’re living in a world of happy dreams.

The fact is that this criminal regime cannot afford to drop their guns and walk out here amongst the rest of us; and there’s much evidence that they do not intend to let that happen–ever. So we had better face that evidence (i.e., unearth it, since the media has largely played it down, or tuned it out), and brace ourselves for a protracted fight; because those men are capable of anything that will maintain their death-grip on the US government.

In this new vlog, I talk about that evidence (or some of it), and what we may expect before Election Day.

PART ONE

PART TWO

You know, on second thought, I would be a little disappointed if I wasn’t on the main core list. I mean, come on. I’d like to think that I would “roam the earth like Caine” and fight the evil corporate theocratic regime which will have elections when things have quieted down or “never”. I use a flexible definition of “fight” that also includes “running” and “hiding”. Or the Brave Sir Robin approach to insurrection. Need to bone up on my survivalism skills. Might have to do some running. Or I could just buy a lot of guns. I think everyone should go out the way the deaf girl did in Jericho. I also think that when Ravenwood Blackwater comes into your home uninvited then shooting them with a big shotgun is the appropriate answer. Related: There is the possibility that there will be a new Kung Fu movie that will hit theaters and torrent sites. It wasn’t until I saw “Dragon: The Bruce Lee” story that I found out that Bruce Lee was up for the role. I certainly hope that the black directors cast an asian or asian american into the lead role but in retrospect David Carradine was probably a better actor than Bruce Lee. In fact, his performance as Caine was one of the best performances on television ever.

I Am Not Naive About the Democratic Party, Part Two

Mark Crispin Miller gives us the rundown on the Voter Reform movement after the election. He criticizes these nonbinding resolutions so he won’t be invited on the Daily Kos Blogroll anymore, not that he ever made that blogroll.

I‘m going to repeat the whole thing here:

The Senate unanimously punks out

If the Senate Democrats weren’t suffering from a severe collective case of battered spouse syndrome, they would be all fired up about the sorry state of our election system, and doing everything they could to make it better. By “better,” I mean, basically, “more honest,” which, in this case, could work only to the Democrats’ advantage. After all, the party’s top dogs tend to care far more about (a) their own careers and (b) the party’s welfare than they do about the state of the Republic.

Such short-sightedness is all too human, and so there’s little point in our decrying it. In any case, such self-interest would at least help save us from the looming fascist order–if (again) the Democrats would only act out of self-interest, rather than continuing to acquiesce so masochistically in BushCo’s grand subversion of American democracy, or what’s now left of it. They cannot, will not, face the truth about the nature of BushCo’s regime. Thus they keep rubber-stamping Bush’s steps toward absolute control of the election system, as they just did last night, approving the appointment of an outright Bushevik to Bush’s EAC.

This cave-in–and the current rush to pass Rush Holt’s bill’ which will finally do more harm than good–make clear that the Democrats feel much assured by their big “victory” in November. They tell themselves that they gave Bush the “thumpin’” that he so quaintly mentioned in his first press conference after E-Day. They tell themselves that their big win of 29 House seats was a sort of proof that things can’t really be so bad, or they would not have been permitted to perform so well.

What they cannot, will not, face is the unpleasant truth about that last election: that there was vast election fraud from coast to coast again; that the volume of complaints from the grass roots (remember them?) was evidently greater than it was two years before; that the Dems arguably won not a mere 29 states but at least 50 (and probably did better in the Senate than they think). In short, they will not, cannot, face the fact that Bush did not just get a “thumpin’,” but was routed–and that it was not Rahm Emanuel/Chuck Schumer who deserve our praises for the (actual) devastation of the Bush Republicans, but the people, who turned out in record numbers, and with a new doggedness, to vote against the Bush regime and all its works. The Democratic party will not give them any credit for that action, or help those who were disenfranchised once again.

There are currently four Democrats, all of them in Florida, challenging the outcome of the 2006 election, and collecting evidence of election fraud in every case; and they’re doing it with no help from the party, which also pressed a number of other “losing” Democratic candidates to do the “gracious” thing and shut their mouths–as if it were “ungracious” to assert, and to defend, the right to vote.

Before Election Day, Republicans refused to talk about election fraud because it would hurt their interests, they having lately “won.” Now it’s the Democrats who play the issue down, or keep ignoring it, for the very same reason. Thus both parties seem inclined to sell the voters out.

This is not about affixing printers to the DRE machines, or any other trivial (and useless) technical adjustment. It’s about confronting those who can’t and won’t confront the enemies of what was once was the world’s most promising democracy. We must confront them now, and force them to confront and overwhelm those enemies, or we can kiss the Constitution, and the Planet Earth, goodbye.

Let me add a few thoughts to this: One of the advantages of controlling the ballot isn’t just controlling when you win, but controlling when you lose. In a chess game sometimes its to your advantage to sacrifice a queen or a rook or even a mid term election (What better way to quiet the critics? See Steve Gilliard.) in order to better position yourself for a long term win. Right now it looks as if the dems retook the congress in order to continue the war. Long range that sucks for the dems. It was great knocking on doors against the republicans last fall. It won’t be so great in 2008 when you’re the party that did nothing to stop the war, an evil unjustified war of imperialist greed at that. True, there’s hope on the Murtha front but he won’t even get help from the more powerful blogs and he’ll get killed by the Corporate Press. Murtha will need all the help he can get.

One more thing: there is vast disagreement about the merits of the Holt bill as its currently authored. People for the American Way supports it. Here’s the best critique I’ve read so far from Josh Mittledorf.

I think the argument that this is “achievable” doesn’t carry much weight, when it is likely we will get only one bite at the apple this legislative session. The threshold for support has to be higher than simply “doesn’t hurt” or even “better than what we’ve got”.

Consequently, I hold any election legislation accountable for making a significant improvement in the situation. I don’t think the Holt bill rises to this standard because

  1. Effective legislation must be explicit about consequences and remedies when, inevitably, their mandates are violated. There are already ample rules, especially at the state level – some might say more than ample rules – that are not being enforced. For example, tens of thousands of precincts have suffered violations and corrupted vote counts, while the only prosecutions of which I am aware are the two Democratic officials recently convicted in Ohio. Another example: Pennsylvania, like many other states, provides that computer code for electronic voting machines must be certified by the state; but in practice, the code is routinely altered by manufacturers up to the day of the election, with no possibility of state supervision. Whom do we sue? What are the appropriate remedies?

  2. There is a huge loophole in Sec 327, providing that when states recount an election because it is close, they don’t have to use the very paper trail that the bill works so hard to provide! So when exactly are the paper trails counted?

  3. The bill is likely to entrench both DREs and the EAC as albatrosses on our voting system for years to come.

Copyright © 2014. Powered by WordPress & Romangie Theme.