US Government

Opposition to the Appointment of Mr. Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”).

IsidoroRDL — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:51:29 -0500

Greetings:
As an old Progressive Republican who after Nam and Watergate worked as an appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations-before the era in the 1980's where divisive politics became the norm-I have been a strong supporter of President-elect Obama. However, I oppose the appointment of Mr. Eric Holder for two main reasons:
First, Mr. Eric Holder’s record in DOJ confirm that he subscribes to the collusion of DOJ with the Judicial Branch in violation of the rights of citizens and the mandate of separation of power.
The evidence is that during the past 32 years that I have conducted federal civil rights litigation on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics1-Mr. Eric Holder was in DOJ working with the Judicial Branch to make the government less accountable.
Thus, if he is appointed and is by the Senate, the policy of DOJ to permit less and less ability of citizens to control abuse of government and its employees will continue.
The evidence confirms during the past 32 years the Courts, DOJ and the Bar have made it almost impossible to make the government accountable by disregarding the legislative mandates under both Civil Rights and Watergate legislation. Query--Who can now afford to sue the government for malfeasance, even if one could find a lawyer willing and able to do so? This is no accident. I content that the Bush Administration’s disregard for the Rule of Law was no anomaly, but in fact consistent with past DOJ policies which Mr. Eric Holder subscribes to.
To understand the magnitude of the problem that the citizens are confronted with by DOJ’s policy of the violation of separation of power by collusion with the Courts,2 I suggest for your reading, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House,* and a recent article, “How to Save the Courts” by Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, Parade Magazine, February 24, 2008.
Second, Mr. Eric Hoder is a defendant in a civil RICO action for violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1204, and 1513.
The evidence confirms that in his capacity as a Beltway attorney and lobbyist he has been the linchpin in a criminal conspiracy by government employees to deprive my Son of his civil rights as a U.S. citizen, obstruct my rights as a parent, and injure, stigmatize, and deprive me of my right as an independent civil litigation attorney in retaliation for my for petitioning Congress, litigating to enforce my federal statutory rights as a parent to compel DOJ to comply with their duty under the Hague Convention on Missing and Abducted Children and Virginia’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act VA Code § 20-124.1 et seq., [See http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror], and for my past 30-year federal civil litigation against the unauthorized polices and practices of DOJ and the Federal Courts in violation of resident and nonresident Hispanics.
In furtherance of the conspiracy Mr. Eric Holder did file a fraudulent bar complaint with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”), complaining of my litigating to enforce federal rights. However, his actions were in violation of Federal criminal law. Also, it uncovered evidence that the Supreme Court of Virginia usurped the mandate of separation of power and the authority granted only to the General Assembly under the Constitution of Virginia to crate courts-of-record. Thus, the evidence is that the VSBDB is without judicial authority or jurisdiction to revoke any attorneys license, and its order as to me is void as issued by a kangaroo court.3 [see Petition for Impeachment of members of Supreme Court of Virginia et al., dated June 2007, http://www.petitiononline.com/RDL/petition.html, and see also http://best-lawyer.tistory.com/entry/Isidoro-Rodriguez-Civil-Rights-LawyerFAMILY-LAW].
However, because of the far reaching political implications of holding Mr. Eric Holder et al. Accountable for their criminal acts, the Federal Courts since 2007 have “stonewalled” by denying demands for a RICO jury trial, refused to comply with the Void Order Doctrine, denied access to an impartial court to compel DOJ protect me as a victim pursuant to the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), and denied me of the right to sue for damages under RICO for malfeasance based on holding absolute Judicial and Executive immunity from tortious and criminal liability and lack of venue in D.C. to challenge the criminal acts initiated there by Mr. Eric Holder, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor in Chief, Legal Times, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-411, filed on September 28, 2008. See In re Isidoro Rodriguez, Petition for Writ of Mandamus, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-339, September 15, 2008, to compel the federal courts to comply with the 18 U.S.C. § 3771; and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. Chief Justice , Supreme Court of Virginia, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-574, field October 30, 2008.
Consequently, to prevent a blot the fledgling Obama/Biden Administration I oppose any hasty appointment Mr. Eric Holder before requiring an investigation of the evidence of malfeasance and my allegations.
At this critical time when the to restore integrity and public confidence in DOJ., we as citizens to protect our rights under this Republic must comply the complying with the word proclaimed on the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department Building in, “No Free Government Can Survive That Is Not Based on The Supremacy of Law. Where Law ends, Tyranny Begins, Law Alone Can Give Us Freedom”
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.Law Offices of Isidoro RodriguezMobil: 703.470.1457 Email: isidoror@earthlink.netWeb: http://www.4jobs.com/1114836Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com
1After I argued and won a Federal Tort Claim Act action, Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed that I was the only know active U.S. license federal litigation sole practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics, i.e. I have: (i) represented 360 nonresident Hispanic women in Class action Breast Implant Cases; (ii) litigated to stop the seizing of all nonresident Hispanic surnamed accounts in the United States as violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Right to Financial Privacy Act, Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997); and, (iii) litigated against the issuance of the Constitutional prohibited bill of attainders against nonresident Hispanics.
2In a review of The Fraternity, Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret), stated regarded the violation of separation of power by the Judicial Branch that"...it is very clear...that the Courts in our judicial system have, in fact, become the lawmakers, when it is very clear...that our Constitution delegated that responsibility to the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures....treads on almost sacred ground when he gives his readers the real insight into how the legal profession has truly changed from being one of the premier professions in our society to a business where the number one objective or bottom line is financial profit..." (Emphasis added).
3“Kangaroo court.” . . . 2. A. Court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, . . . . 3. A sham legal proceeding. . . .‘” Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, at page 382 (8th ed., 1999). Emphasis added.

Senate Kills the Constitution on 80-15 Vote

Bob Fertik — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:39:53 -0400

On Wednesday, by a vote of 80-15, the United State Senate killed the Constitution of the United States by legalizing warrantless wiretapping.

The Senate vote follows last Friday's 293-129 vote in the House.

Big Brother is watching you. He is listening to every phone call, reading every email, following every click of your browser.

Big Brother has complete power. You have none.

And every institution in Washington DC thinks that is perfectly fine - the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Corporate Media.

Why? Because they think you should be watched, just in case you decide to overthrow Big Brother.

Your tax dollars created Big Brother. Your tax dollars are protecting him. And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Or me.

I just thought you'd want to know.

Update 1: For the record, these 15 Senators voted against Big Brother:

Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

These 5 Senators didn't bother to vote:

Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

The other 80 Senators voted for Big Brother.

Update 2: Yesterday, Senator Obama said:

My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.

Change you can believe in? As dday writes,

Obama is totally cool with the precedent of the government giving a slip of paper to a corporation allowing them to break the law. He's cool with the premise of "we were just following orders" that was shot down at Nuremberg being revived. He's cool with if the President does it, then it isn't illegal. He's cool with a bunch of the other really dangerous aspects of the bill, including the vacuuming up of every communication that leaves or enters the United States without even the caveat that they be related to terrorism. He's cool with a national surveillance state.

Just plain cool with it.

Exactly.

How the Bush Administration Is Turning the USA into a Subprime Borrower

Heather Wokusch — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:47:01 -0400

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W Bush

Much in the same way that US investors were “steered” into rip-off mortgage loans, the entire country has been “steered” into an economic crisis. The question is how to get out of it.

In the subprime loan scandal, unscrupulous brokers conned home buyers with poor credit histories into deals designed to profit lenders and bleed borrowers. Contract “teasers” hid ballooning monthly payments while a lack of regulation allowed the scam to continue unabated. Millions more Americans now face losing their homes.

The Bush administration similarly used promises of cakewalks and increased security to con the US public into wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. US taxpayers have spent over $450 billion on Iraq alone, while Bush/Cheney cronies continue making a killing from military contracts. Meanwhile, global security has degenerated and over 4,100 US service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with an untold number of coalition troops, contractors and civilians.

Bush’s military adventurism, not to mention his administration’s exorbitant tax cuts for the wealthy, gutted the surplus of $128 billion Clinton handed him in 2001 into a deficit of well over $200 billion today. And Bush has simultaneously increased the national debt by over $3 trillion (to roughly $9 trillion), effectively nailing each and every US citizen with a bill for almost $30,000.

While heavy borrowing from Asia has mopped up some stateside red ink, there’s an inherent threat: China, for example, has an estimated $900 billion in US bonds and can increasingly call the shots on the US economy and foreign policy.

Just weeks ago, Beijing warned that if the Bush administration pushed for a revaluation of the Chinese currency, then Beijing would sell dollars, thereby threatening the greenback’s reserve currency status. Washington backed down. It had little other option.

In other words, the US itself has become as vulnerable to its lenders as any other subprime borrower.

Overall, the US debt situation looks so dire that the non-partisan Government Accountability Office Comptroller recently warned, America is on a path toward an explosion of debt. And that indebtedness threatens our country’s, our children’s, and our grandchildren’s futures. With the looming retirement of the baby boomers, spiraling health care costs, plummeting savings rates, and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks.”

Financial analysts say credit markets are facing a Minsky moment – the inevitable downward spiral when over-leveraged investors have to sell valued assets just to pay back their loans. Some analysts have even coined a new term, suggesting we are in a “Minsky meltdown” – the prelude to a wider market crash.

But it looks more like a “Minsky massacre,” not an unavoidable economic downturn but rather a coldly-calculated hit, with the intention of transferring wealth from the lower and middle classes to an unaccountable few at the top.

Bottom line, this economic downturn isn’t hurting everyone. Select brokers and lenders made a fortune off the backs of subprime borrowers, and now that the related hedge funds are collapsing, well-leveraged private equity firms can buy assets at fire-sale prices.

And as Jim Hightower recently noted, a “hands-off regulatory ideology” is complicit: “There are no less than five financial agencies at the federal level that could have protected people, yet the subprime surge was allowed to proceed .... The Federal Reserve Board, for example, has direct authority under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act to ‘prohibit acts or practices in connection with mortgage loans that the board finds to be unfair, deceptive or ... associated with abusive lending practices, or that are otherwise not in the interest of the borrower.’ The Fed simply ignored this law.”

The US has been down this road before. The Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis of the late 1980s was also characterized by loose lending requirements, lax regulation, obscene profits for the few - and US taxpayers left holding the bag for $125 billion.

Ironically, the Bush family was involved in that scandal too, with Bush Jr.’s brother Neil serving on the board of the disgraced Silverado Savings and Loan, which went bust and stuck US taxpayers with a $1.3 billion debt. Regulators accused Neil of "multiple conflicts of interest" but he never did jail time – thanks at least in part to the S&L bail out engineered by his father, Bush Sr., who happened to be President at the time.

Just as in the S&L crisis, the poor and middle class have borne the brunt of the current subprime disaster, an especially nasty fact given the nation’s huge wealth gap. As Inequality.org points out, “The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. The top one percent also owns 36.9 percent of all corporate stock.”

It’s probably no coincidence that terms associated with both corporate and developing country indebtedness are being used to discuss the US subprime meltdown (payment defaults, vulture funds, distressed debt, etc). Perhaps the US hasn’t reached banana republic status yet, but the increasing wealth gap, not to mention ballooning budget deficits, low capital spending and reliance on foreign capital are disturbing signs.

Doesn’t help either that the Federal Reserve stopped releasing M3 money-supply data in 2006. M3 data (covering Eurodollars, repurchase agreements and large-denomination time deposits) is critical in determining how fast the Fed is printing money, which in turn impacts inflation.

So, what further fallout from the subprime scandal can be expected? Millions more Americans will lose their homes, and as The New York Times recently reported, “for the first time since federal housing agencies began keeping statistics in 1950,” the median price of homes in the US will fall.

Ratings agencies, such as Standard & Poor's and Moody's, will take some heat for their role in the scandal, but the Bush administration will focus on bailing out predatory lenders rather than helping Americans keep their homes. Congress and most presidential candidates will protect financial services campaign donors by not pursuing true reform.

Meanwhile, Asia and Europe will continue “decoupling” from increasingly volatile US markets, threatening the dollar’s reserve currency status even more. Fresh off its recent war games with China and four Central Asian republics, Russia will more actively confront the US on the world stage. The Bush administration will move closer to a war with Iran.

Of course, these dire predictions don’t have to materialize - we can regroup and fight back. One avenue is by urging Congress members to take action, such as changing foreclosure rules to protect homeowners and supporting Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act (H.R. 2895). Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) push to have the Fed start releasing M3 data again (H.R.4892 ) is also urgent.

At the very least, we must frame the Bush administration’s war-making as a direct threat to the US economy, not to mention national security, and just like maxed out home buyers, confront our nation’s culture of debt.

Action Tips:

1. For online videos about the subprime issue and “Money as Debt,” visit Brasscheck TV (www.brasschecktv.com/page/135.html)
2. Check out two groups working on affordable US housing: the Community Land Trust (www.iceclt.org/clt/) and the National Housing Trust Fund (www.housingmatters.net)
3. Learn more about “America’s growing economic divide” Inequality.org (www.demos.org/inequality/index.cfm)
4. Concerned about predatory lending? So is The Center for Responsible Lending (www.responsiblelending.org/).

Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives’ Handbook series (www.progressiveshandbook.com)

Impeach Gonzalez - Watch the Video, Sign the Petition?

Chip — Tue, 22 May 2007 05:17:09 -0400

Who Cares? Why Does It Matter?

A Radical New Democratic Agenda: Kill the Bureaucrats!

Bob Fertik — Sun, 13 May 2007 22:34:35 -0400

Without mentioning Reagan by name, Digby describes the way he transformed American politics:

It's not that taxes were ever popular, any more than paying your electric bill is "popular" or buying a new furnace is "popular." But until the GOP hit on their free lunch propaganda they were just considered a fact of life ("death and taxes") as long as the rich weren't perceived to be getting off easy and the government was delivering services to the people. Republican campaign tactics and governance have pretty much destroyed that resigned acceptance by making people believe that taxes are inherently evil and if the government needs to do something it will magically find the money some other way.

Reagan introduced several conservative theories of government and society that have endured long past his descent into Alzheimer's:

The way to reduce federal deficits is to reduce tax rates on the rich, who will invest all of their tax savings in productivity-increasing businesses that will speed economic growth and produce more than enough tax revenues to make up for the cut in tax rates (a.k.a. "supply-side economics" and the "Laffer Curve")
Government can't solve problems, government is the problem because politicians and bureaucrats are lazy and corrupt
Citizens only need government services if they are losers, and the way to fix their problems is to cut off their services and force them to deal with their personal problems

Digby harkens back to an earlier era that believed government could provide many needed services efficiently if honest bureaucrats made their best efforts to implement well-designed programs. That ideology grew out of the New Deal and World War II, when government programs (and wars) run by Democrats were generally well run and produced positive results.

But Vietnam and Watergate badly eroded that ideology. Jimmy Carter tried to restore it through hands-on management, but he couldn't overcome the stagflation he inherited from the Vietnam War and the oil shocks, and Reagan beat him in 1980 by simply asking "are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Reagan and Bush I discovered supply-side economics isn't magic - cutting tax rates for the rich simply produced lower tax revenues and huge deficits. Bill Clinton set out to eliminate those deficits by raising tax rates ever so slightly for the rich and by trimming wasteful programs. Clinton's plan worked - he produced surpluses in his last two years and handed Bush II a project 5-year surplus of $6 trillion. But the rich were furious and funded a rightwing Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and their first act was to shut down Clinton's government to force Medicare patients to pay higher co-payments.

The point I'm trying to make is Democrats will never get the opportunity to prove that a well-managed government can help the American people. Why? Because Republicans hate good government and will do everything in their power to destroy it.

So what can Democrats do about it?

I propose a radical new approach to government that can be reduced to a bumper sticker: kill the bureaucrats.

Of course I don't really mean kill the bureaucrats. But I do mean eliminate their jobs.

How? Not by contracting out government services to corrupt companies like Halliburton, which is what the Republicans did.

I believe many government services can be turned directly over to the people they are intended to help.

How? Through internet-enabled user groups.

US Backed Terrorist Group Explode Car Bomb In Iran Killing 11 Iranian Soldiers, 31 Wounded

Chris Elliott — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:30:31 -0500

A War On Terrorism or a War Of Terrorism?

Reports as usual vary wildly and small wonder that some news sources are trying to pin this on yet another subsidiary of "Al Qaeda". But this wasn't a suicide attack.

The terrorists drove a car, packed with explosives, up to a bus carrying soldiers of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Some reports say that they forced the bus to stop by firing on it with automatic weapons, others that they blocked the road with the car while pretending to have broken down. Either way, they quickly escaped on motorbikes before detonating the car bomb by remote control.

Reports claim so far 11 soldiers killed and up to 31 wounded. A terrorist attack on this scale against Iran's elite forces, in broad daylight is unprecedented.

The official Iranian news agency announced that five arrests have been made including the ring leader and a major investigation has been launched to determine who else is involved in the attack.

It also claims to have evidence that the terrorist group was backed by the United States.

Explosion kills 11 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards

Iranian News Agency

A car bomb killed 11 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards on Wednesday in the deadliest attack in years near the Pakistani border, and Iran accused the United States of backing militants to destabilize the country.

A Sunni Muslim militant group called Jundallah, or God's Brigade, which has been blamed for past attacks on Iranian troops, claimed responsibility for the bombing. The blast represented a sharp flare-up of violence in the remote southeast corner of Iran, near Pakistan and Afghanistan, that has long been plagued by lawlessness.

The area is a key crossing point for opium from Afghanistan and often sees clashes between police and drug gangs. At the same time, Jundallah has waged a low-level insurgency in the area, led by Abdulmalak Rigi, a member of Iran's ethnic Baluchi minority, a community that is Sunni Muslim and is present in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rigi has said his group is fighting for the rights of impoverished Sunnis under Iran's Shiite government.

An al-Qaida-linked group of the same name has carried out attacks in Pakistan, but Pakistani officials say it is not connected to the Iranian militants. Iranian officials blamed "insurgents" and "terrorists" for Wednesday's bombing -- and accused the United States of backing them to sow instability in Iran.

The London Times

February 15, 2007

The official Iranian news agency quoted an unnamed official as saying evidence suggested that the bus attackers had support from the United States.

Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie, Iran's Intelligence Minister, claimed last week that Tehran had identified 100 spies working for the United States and Israel in the border areas.

The attack follows sporadic violence in Iran's oil-rich south-western province of Khuzestan, which has a minority Arab population, and borders southern Iraq, where British troops are based.

Explosions killed more than 20 people in Khuzestan's capital, Ahvaz, in 2005 and early 2006. London has denied as "ludicrous" Iranian accusations that Britain has fomented instability in Khuzestan.

BBC News

Correspondents say an attack of this size and nature is unprecedented in Iran - hitting an elite force in daylight in an open street. Reports say suspects behind the bombing have been arrested.

The city of Zahedan lies in the province of Sistan-Baluchestan, which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has been hit by a string of attacks and kidnappings blamed on the hardline Sunni group called Jundallah.

Iranian officials have accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the Islamic republic's sensitive border areas.

Tehran Times

Five suspects have been arrested, an official of the Sistan-Baluchestan Governor General’s Office announced.

“The detained individuals entered the province from another country and according to their confessions, they committed the terrorist act based on a plan to incite division between Shias and Sunnis and provoke ethnic strife,” Soltan-Ali Mir told the Mehr News Agency.

The ringleader of the bombing is among the five, he added. “Some of the arrested terrorists entered Iran two days ago,” Mir stated.

Sunni ulema in Sistan-Baluchestan Province have condemned the bombing, he added. A major operation is underway to identify and arrest all the others involved in the act.

International Media In Overdrive At Prospect Of War With Iran

Chris Elliott — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:07:28 -0500

First I invite you to watch this excellent 10 minute speech by George Galloway to the British Parliament on January 27, 2007 in which he delivers a stark warning that Britain is sleepwalking into a catastrophic war with Iran along with the US and Israel. George Galloway was the man who you may remember lambasting the US Senate over false accusations of oil bribes with Saddam.

George Galloway's speech to the British Parliament, January 2007

Now, if that very sobering speech has got your attention, the following should also be noted.

In the last few days international media have gone into war overdrive, in exactly the same way they did prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003. I was going to write that later this week the Bush Administration will make public it has evidence that Iran is involved in the Iraq insurgency and attacks on US troops, but in fact this is already being touted by CNN.

I include here a sample of the hundreds of international media reports pointing towards a war with Iran, thought to take place in the next few weeks. I have highlighted some significant sentences in the reports.

It should also be noted that Iran has a defensive alliance with Syria and close economic and to some extent military ties to Russia, China and other SCO members (see my blog on Chinese anti-satellite weapons for more on this relationship). Venezuala has also pledged to support Iran in the event of war with the US.

Iran involvement suspected in Karbala compound attack
POSTED: 9:50 p.m. EST, January 30, 2007
NEW: U.S. probing possible Iranian involvement in brazen compound raid

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.

"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said.

That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.

The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."

Five U.S. soldiers were killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing U.S.-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports.

Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is a preliminary view, and there is no final conclusion. They agreed this possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.

Bush 'spoiling for a fight' with Iran

Simon Tisdall
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian

US officials in Baghdad and Washington are expected to unveil a secret intelligence "dossier" this week detailing evidence of Iran's alleged complicity in attacks on American troops in Iraq. The move, uncomfortably echoing Downing Street's dossier debacle in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, is one more sign that the Bush administration is building a case for war.

Nicholas Burns, the senior US diplomat in charge of Iran policy, says Washington "is not looking for a fight" with Tehran. The official line is that Washington has made a conscious decision to "push back" against Iran on a range of fronts where the two countries' interests clash. Primarily that means Tehran's perceived meddling in Iraq, where its influence with the Shia-led government and Shia majority population appears to be increasing as Washington's weakens.

State department spokesman Sean McCormack claimed this week the administration has a body of evidence implicating Iran in sectarian attacks against Iraq's Sunni minority. "There is a high degree of confidence in the information that we already have and we are constantly accumulating more," he told the New York Times.

CIA and Pentagon officials are also touting intelligence that "Iranians are smuggling into Iraq sophisticated explosive devices, mortars, and detailed plans to wipe out Sunni Arab neighbourhoods," the paper said. Officials would make a "comprehensive case" this week. But President George Bush has already acted on information received. He confirmed yesterday that he has ordered US forces in effect to kill or capture Iranian "agents" targeting Americans in Iraq - as happened earlier this month when five Iranian officials were detained in Irbil.

Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2007 11:00 a.m. EST
Sen. Robert Byrd: Bush Wants War with Iran

Top Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd is warning that the Bush administration is preparing to go to war with Iran.

In a e-mail message sent to activist Democrats, the West Virginia lawmaker – who is now President pro tempore of the Senate and third in line for the presidency after Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi – rails against President Bush’s plans for a troop surge in Iraq and declares:

"Not only does Mr. Bush intend to plunge us deeper into what is now clearly a civil war in Iraq, but he is now increasing his belligerence towards Iran and Syria. In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush called out Iran no less than seven times.

"I fear that what we are seeing now is an administration intent on laying the groundwork for a wider war in the Middle East.

Europeans fear US attack on Iran as nuclear row intensifies
Ian Traynor in Brussels and Jonathan Steele
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian

"There's anxiety everywhere you turn," said a diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. "The Europeans are very concerned the shit could hit the fan."

A US navy battle group of seven vessels was steaming towards the Gulf yesterday from the Red Sea, part of a deployment of 50 US ships, including two aircraft carriers, expected in the area in weeks.

"No path is envisaged by the EU other than the UN path," the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, told the Guardian yesterday. "The priority for all of us is that Iran complies with UN security council resolutions."

The IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, called at the weekend for a "timeout" in the worsening confrontation in an attempt to enable both sides to save face and climb down. But the Americans rejected the proposal and European officials involved in the dispute also believe the Iranians cannot be trusted to stick to a deal.

Russia queries US military build-up
Published: Sunday, 28 January, 2007, 08:18 AM Doha Time

MOSCOW: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday said he would demand an explanation from the US over its military build-up in the Middle East and criticised Washington for “hardline” policies against Iran.

Lavrov said he would discuss Moscow’s concerns during a meeting of the international Quartet group, which meets in Washington next week to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

“I have not seen any change in the rather aggressive rhetoric from Washington. It continues, as does the growing military presence in the region. This will be one of the questions that we want to clear up in Washington,” he was quoted as saying by state-run news agency RIA Novosti.

Lavrov also criticised what he said were US threats to bypass the UN in taking new measures against Iran’s controversial nuclear power programme.

Washington believes the programme, in which Russia is building the first civilian power station at Bushehr, secretly aims to build an atomic weapon.

“Washington’s hardline policy concerning Iran foresees... much tougher sanctions than those called for in the last UN Security Council resolution,” he was quoted as saying by Itar-Tass. “We would like to get an explanation on what stands behinds this.”

Iran’s strategic proposal to Russia

Tehran Times Political Desk
TEHRAN -- The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the development of ties with Russia in all areas and believes that there is great potential for their expansion, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said here on Sunday.

“The two countries can be two complementary partners in the political, economic, regional and international arenas,” Ayatollah Khamenei told Russian Security Council chief Igor Ivanov on Sunday.

The Leader said that both Iran and Russia would benefit from enhanced ties.

He also thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin for sending him a written message, which was delivered by Ivanov. Pointing to the fact that Iran and Russia control about half of the world’s gas reserves, the Leader proposed that “the two countries can jointly establish an organization like OPEC for dealing with gas cooperation.”

Iran and Russia can block Washington’s hegemonistic plans

U.S. Freezes Sales of F-14 Fighter Parts

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

The Pentagon has frozen the sale of all spare parts for F-14 “Tomcat” fighters because of concerns about their transfer to Iran, a Defense Department spokeswoman said Jan. 30.
The sales of all F-14 parts were suspended on January 26 pending a review, the Defense Logistics Agency said in a statement.

Dawn Dearden, a spokewoman for the agency, told AFP the sales were frozen “given the current situation in Iran.”
Iran bought 79 F-14s from the United States before the fall of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in 1979.
The move comes amid growing U.S.-Iranian tensions over Tehran’s disputed nuclear program and what Washington sees as Iranian subversion of U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq.

US must abandon Iraqi cities or face nightmare scenario, say experts

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 30 January 2007

The US must draw up plans to deal with an all-out Iraqi civil war that would kill hundreds of thousands, create millions of refugees, and could spill over into a regional catastrophe, disrupting oil supplies and setting up a direct confrontation between Washington and Iran.

This is the central recommendation of a study by the Brookings Institution here, based on the assumption that President Bush's last-ditch troop increase fails to stabilise the country - but also on the reality that Washington cannot simply walk away from the growing disaster unleashed by the 2003 invasion.

Even the US staying to try to contain the fighting, said Kenneth Pollack, one of the report's authors, "would consign Iraqis to a terrible fate. Even if it works, we will have failed to provide the Iraqis with the better future we promised." But it was the "least bad option" open to the US to protect its national interests in the event of full-scale civil war.

US troops, says the study, should withdraw from Iraqi cities. This was "the only rational course of action, horrific though it will be", as America refocused its efforts from preventing civil war to containing its effects.

The unremittingly bleak document, drawing on the experience of civil wars in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Congo and Afghanistan, also offers a remarkably stark assessment of Iraq's "spill-over" potential across the Persian Gulf region.

'US poised to attack,' claims Bulgarian agency
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News

The United States “could be using its two air force bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite claimed. Commenting on the report, The Sunday Herald wrote that the U.S. build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz “appears to indicate that U.S. President Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the U.N. Security Council's resolution.”

“Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of the America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defense bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror,” wrote the Scottish paper.

The Bulgarian agency named Colonel Sam Gardiner, "a U.S. secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria," as the source its story.

Before the end of March, 3,000 U.S. military personnel are scheduled to arrive "on a rotating basis" at the United States' Bulgarian bases. Under the U.S.-Bulgarian military cooperation accord, signed in April, 2006, an airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to the U.S. Army.

Resource Wars
by William K. Tabb

Ted Koppel, writing in the New York Times (February 24, 2006), responded to what he described as the Bush administration’s “touchiness” about the charge that we are in Iraq because of oil by stating the obvious, though often unsaid, truth, “Now that’s curious. Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been bedrock American foreign policy for more than half a century.” Today control over the world’s oil supply is at the forefront of Washington policy makers’ thinking, even if the president and his team deny any such intent and talk publically of reducing dependence on Middle East oil by three-quarters of present levels, an absurdly impossible goal. Two-thirds of the oil in the world is in the Middle East, much of it under Iraq and Iran, the axis of oil, the current targets of the U.S. war on terrorism. Control of oil is integral to Washington’s official goal of world domination, a goal stated this baldly in national security documents.

During the administration of the first President Bush, the Pentagon under then defense secretary Dick Cheney produced a strategy paper stating the mission of “convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.” The United States would defend their interests for them and so the policy was to “discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.”6 Control of the world is facilitated through control of essential resources. By controlling the world’s energy, and in the presence of its overwhelming military superiority, the United States is potentially able to deny the lifeblood of any society and intimidate and coerce the world more effectively, a design going back easily to Henry Kissinger, and earlier to the emergence of U.S. global power at the end of the Second World War, but now carried to new heights by the neoconservatives.

Hegemony has always been a bipartisan consensus. With regard specifically to the Middle East we have the Carter Doctrine: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” Since Carter created the Rapid Deployment Force with this intervention in mind the United States has moved to forward positioning, the establishment of a huge permanent military presence in the region, including a number of multi-billion dollar bases in Iraq, huge fortified cities with all the comforts of home, fast food places, video stores, and car rental agencies for the soldiers who garrison the empire along “the arc of instability.” All of this takes place in territories which coincide with the parts of the Global South where oil is found. That the official rationale is now the war on terrorism in place of anticommunism is secondary to the continuation of the basic policy of world domination.

Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon And Americans Should Take Note

Chris Elliott — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:53:28 -0500

China’s unannounced test of an anti-satellite ballistic missile on the 11 January 2007 has evidently caused significant concern in the West and in particular the US. Not only does it put existing military and civilian satellite networks at risk, the act was clearly intended as a warning in the true cold war sense.

As I write this report, the story has finally hit the mainstream media but in most cases only a fairly sanitized version of the events is being made public. This very newsworthy event was not made public for 6 days after the launch, but despite the delay in publication, some interesting details are emerging that indicate increasing tensions between China and the US.

Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon

By Craig Covault/Aviation Week & Space Technology 01/17/2007 07:45:59 PM

U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan. 11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.

The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test, Aviation Week & Space Technology will report in its Jan. 22 issue. If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability.

Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser.

“Illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser” is a significant omission in most accounts. Clearly China can now track US spy satellites with laser guided precision and has now demonstrated the ability to destroy them.

On January 19th, Al Jazeera also carried the story with this interesting addition.

Debris threat

A senior White House official, requesting anonymity, said that Britain, Japan and South Korea were expected to express their concerns to China soon.

A key concern of the test is that debris could interfere with civilian and military satellite operations on which the West increasingly relies.

On the day of the test, a US defense official said the United States was unable to communicate with an experimental spy satellite launched last year by the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.

However, there was no immediate indication that this was a result of the Chinese test.

By itself, China’s development of this technology would not be of such concern. The US and Russia have possessed equivalent systems for decades. But set against the backdrop of cooling Sino-US relations and open threats of war with Iran (who has observer membership status within the SCO) it looks increasingly like a shot across America’s bow.

The fact that the launch was not announced beforehand and would certainly be detected by the US suggests this was indeed meant to cause “concern”. It wasn’t meant to be secret and the timing may also be significant.

Just two days before the missile launch the Associated Press published this report concerning US displeasure at multi-billion Euro $ gas deals signed between Iran and China.

U.S. cautions China over reported multibillion dollar gas deal with Iran

The Associated Press Published: January 9, 2007

BEIJING: The United States has urged China to reconsider a reported multibillion dollar (euro) natural gas deal with Iran amid international efforts to sanction Tehran for its nuclear programs, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman said Tuesday.

China's No. 3 oil company, China National Offshore Oil Corp., was reported last month to be in talks to develop Iran's Northern Pars gas field.

Around the same time, the U.N. Security Council unanimously agreed to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend a uranium enrichment program that is suspected of being part of a nuclear weapons project.

Given the sanctions and Tehran's continued defiance, "We think this is a particularly bad time to be initiating major new commercial deals with Iran," U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Susan Stevenson said in an e-mail.

Less than a week after this warning to China, we read in the London Times

Britain is joining an American military campaign to blunt Iranian influence in Iraq and the Gulf.

In a move likely to heighten tension in an already volatile part of the world, US forces have been ordered to detain Iranian agents in Iraq and to strengthen substantially America’s military presence in the Gulf.

Two Royal Navy minehunters have arrived in the Gulf to reinforce a naval frigate on patrol in the area.

continues

Britain’s contribution is two minehunters HMS Blyth and HMS Ramsey, which will remain in the Gulf for an unusually-long two-year mission to keep shipping routes open in the event that Iran attempts to block oil exports.

The presence of 2 US carrier strike groups in the Gulf is not only provocative to Iran.

It must surely also be a pressure on China to show solidarity with it’s fellow SCO member and essential energy provider, or risk dissatisfaction with the other member states. [on edit this is misleading - Iran has applied for membership but has not yet become a member, but it's close status as a business partner makes this likely in the near future.] The SCO is after all an alliance of convenience to counter the strength of US and NATO military influence in the whole region. Iraq never had such powerful friends but Iran not only has good relations, it has long term energy contracts essential for China’s growing industry. The fact these contracts are remunerated in Euro $’s can only inflame the situation further.

It should also be noted that the nuclear power plant that is the casus belli for the US campaign against Iran is the result of a very lucrative contract with Russia; the deaths of Russian engineers and nuclear scientists in a strike against these facilities, not to mention the radioactive contamination throughout that region would also put a great deal of pressure on Vladimir Putin, the other leading statesman in the SCO.

Another point to consider is the West’s reliance on the GPS satellite network for civilian and military aircraft navigation and even the guidance systems for long range missiles. Even if there are back-up satellite systems for military use these would likewise be very vulnerable to attack. A sudden and overwhelming attack on these satellite systems, in a defensive capacity in the face of a perceived threat of war, would render a good deal of the West’s aircraft grounded and prevent early warning systems from detecting long range ballistic missile launches.

Collectively, the SCO controls a large portion of the world’s population and strategic resources and the Bush administration’s determination to provoke it is extremely dangerous for us all. [On edit China's launch of this missile is also highly provocative but perhaps less so than the huge build up of armed forces in the Gulf region. The consequences of a military confrontation between the SCO and NATO across the war torn regions of the Middle East are profound to say the very least].

[edited to correct html and clarify some assumptions]

Update January 21st, 2007

It seems there is more to the “Illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser” statement than first appears. It isn't as I assumed a laser targetting system for tracking satellites.

The London Telegraph published this report back in September 2006 and it seems likely that this "Illumination" is the result of a laser weapon powerful enough to blind a spy satellites optical sensors.

Beijing secretly fires lasers to disable US satellites
By Francis Harris in Washington
Last Updated: 1:55am BST 27/09/2006

China has secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by "blinding" their sensitive surveillance devices, it was reported yesterday.

The hitherto unreported attacks have been kept secret by the Bush administration for fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran.

Sources told the military affairs publication Defense News that there had been a fierce internal battle within Washington over whether to make the attacks public. In the end, the Pentagon's annual assessment of the growing Chinese military build-up barely mentioned the threat.

Update January 22nd, 2007

The Chinese government have announced that the launch of the anti-satellite missile was intended to force the United States to the negotiating table and reconsider a ban of the use of weapons in Space.

On January 20th the London Times reports

Washington’s response will be crucial in determining what happens next: an arms race in space or an agreement to limit the use of Star Wars technology. American analysts said that the test had exposed the “soft underbelly” of America’s national security apparatus, because most of the Pentagon’s spy satellites orbit at a similar height to the weather satellite destroyed by the Chinese test.

White House critics said that the Chinese test was a result of President Bush’s aggressive unilateralism, this time in his space policy. Last year the US expressly ignored Chinese and Russian calls for a global ban on the development of space weapons. Instead, a new policy preserved America’s right to develop military space technology, while “dissuading” others.

However, China's warning appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Before most of the public were even aware of the launch, the Bush administration have dismissed calls to alter their controversial space weapons policy.

China’s Anti-Satellite Test Widely Criticized, U.S. Says No New Treaties Needed

By Jeremy Singer and Colin Clark
Space News Staff Writers
posted: 19 January 2007
6:20 p.m. ET

Standing by the new space policy the White House issued last year, a U.S. State Department official said China’s Jan. 11 test of an anti-satellite weapon in space is not cause to open negotiations on a new treaty that would place limits on what countries can do in space.

“We do not think there is an arms race in space. The United States believes that the existing body of existing international agreements — including the Outer Space Treaty, as well as the liability and respective compensation conventions — provide the appropriate legal regime for space,” the State Department official said in a Jan. 19 telephone interview.

The official said the space policy clearly states that the United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to, or use of, space and that no change in that policy is warranted.

“Arms control is not a viable solution for space. For example, there is no agreement on how to define space weapon. Without a definition you are left with loopholes and meaningless limitations that endanger national security. No arms control is better than bad arms control,” the State Department official said.

A new development is likely to inflame Sino/US relations further. Yesterday the Chinese premier announced he had authorised the diversification of up to 1/3 of their foreign exchange reserves now mostly locked up in US Treasury bonds.

The Financial Times reports

China’s multibillion dollar question
By Richard McGregor in Beijing

Published: January 21 2007 20:04 | Last updated: January 21 2007 20:04

With a vaguely worded statement from Wen Jiabao, China’s premier, at the close of a weekend meeting in Beijing on finance policy, the die has been cast for a momentous change in the management of the country’s massive foreign exchange reserves.

Mr Wen said the management of the reserves, the world’s largest at more than a thousand billion dollars, should be improved and the channels through which they are invested diversified.

continues

Mr Wen did not endorse any specific plan but has indicated the government will consider proposals on how to use some of the money – now mostly locked up in US Treasury bonds – more aggressively.

Initial projections for the amount of money that could be more actively managed are $200bn-$300bn but Mr Wen shed no light on this.

Impeachment Committee - NC 7th

NicoleCarpenter — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:43:37 -0500

Looking for those interested in the 7th Congressional Dist, NC to join the effort and show their support. The world can't wait two years, we need to take action.

Please, Mr. Bush, I Want Some More

CactusPat — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:30:47 -0500

For those who don't get the reference, it's one of the classic lines in literature, theater, and movies. In Dicken's classic, Oliver Twist, the orphan, Oliver, asks the headmaster "Please, sir, I want some more". In modern day America, it's a question that's being asked as more and more Americans fall into poverty, despair, and hunger. But no, one can't say hunger anymore, you see under the Bush Junta the word hunger is no longer "scientific" enough for the USDA to use to gauge if someone isn't getting enough food to eat. Welcome to "very low food security"....

Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience "very low food security." Every year, the Agriculture Department issues a report that measures Americans' access to food, and it has consistently used the word "hunger" to describe those who can least afford to put food on the table. But not this year.... (more)

Mark Nord, the lead author of the report, said "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured in the food security survey." Nord, a USDA sociologist, said, "We don't have a measure of that condition."

The USDA said that 12 percent of Americans -- 35 million people -- could not put food on the table at least part of last year. Eleven million of them reported going hungry at times. Beginning this year, the USDA has determined "very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group.

The United States has set a goal of reducing the proportion of food-insecure households to 6 percent or less by 2010, or half the 1995 level, but it is proving difficult. The number of hungriest Americans has risen over the past five years. Last year, the total share of food-insecure households stood at 11 percent.

Less vexing has been the effort to fix the way hunger is described. Three years ago, the USDA asked the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academies "to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access -- or lack of access -- to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound."

Among several recommendations, the panel suggested that the USDA scrap the word hunger, which "should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."

To measure hunger, the USDA determined, the government would have to ask individual people whether "lack of eating led to these more severe conditions," as opposed to asking who can afford to keep food in the house, Nord said.

It is not likely that USDA economists will tackle measuring individual hunger. "Hunger is clearly an important issue," Nord said. "But lacking a widespread consensus on what the word 'hunger' should refer to, it's difficult for research to shed meaningful light on it."

Anti-hunger advocates say the new words sugarcoat a national shame. "The proposal to remove the word 'hunger' from our official reports is a huge disservice to the millions of Americans who struggle daily to feed themselves and their families," said David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, an anti-hunger advocacy group. "We . . . cannot hide the reality of hunger among our citizens."

In assembling its report, the USDA divides Americans into groups with "food security" and those with "food insecurity," who cannot always afford to keep food on the table. Under the old lexicon, that group -- 11 percent of American households last year -- was categorized into "food insecurity without hunger," meaning people who ate, though sometimes not well, and "food insecurity with hunger," for those who sometimes had no food.

That last group now forms the category "very low food security," described as experiencing "multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake." Slightly better-off people who aren't always sure where their next meal is coming from are labeled "low food security."

That 35 million people in this wealthy nation feel insecure about their next meal can be hard to believe, even in the highest circles. In 1999, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, then running for president, said he thought the annual USDA report -- which consistently finds his home state one of the hungriest in the nation -- was fabricated.

"I'm sure there are some people in my state who are hungry," Bush said. "I don't believe 5 percent are hungry."

Bush said he believed that the statistics were aimed at his candidacy. "Yeah, I'm surprised a report floats out of Washington when I'm running a presidential campaign," he said.

The agency usually releases the report in the fall, for reasons that "have nothing to do with politics," Nord said.

This year, when the report failed to appear in October as it usually does, Democrats accused the Bush administration of delaying its release until after the midterm elections. Nord denied the contention, saying, "This is a schedule that was set several months ago."

Yep, sad but true, the corporatist fat cats on Wall Street have the stock market pushed up to an all-time high, but that concentration of "wealth" is made possible at the expense of ever growing poverty and hunger. 12%! That's one in every eight of us..... Plus, The weaseal bastard Bushite's had the report delayed so as to not affect the election.