US militarism and Obama’s State of the Union address

US militarism and Obama’s State of the Union address

OBAMA HAS SQUANDERED BILLIONS FOR THE BUSH'S FAMILY'S WAR TO PROTECT THIER BED PARTNERS, THE 9-11 SAUDI INVADERS BIG OIL - CARYLE GROUP. THE BUSH FAMILY STARTED TWO WARS ON BEHALF OF THEIR SAUDIS PARTNERS!

WE WILL BE LUCKY IF BUSH/OBAMA/CLINTON DO NOT START A WAR AGAINST THE SAUDI'S ENEMIES, THE IRANIANS.

MEANWHILE...

THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS NOW OPERATE IN 2,500 AMERICAN CITIES!

ARIZONA, ONE OF THE STATES OBAMA HAS SUED ON BEHALF OF HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS, IS THE BIGGEST GATEWAY FOR NARCOMEX!

NEXT TO MEXICO CITY, PHOENIX IS THE SECOND LARGEST CENTER FOR MEXICAN KIDNAPPING! IT IS THE LARGEST CENTER IN THIS NATION FOR MEXICAN CAR THEFT.

WHILE EVEN BUSH REFUSED TO GIVE MEXICAN TRUCK DRVERS ACCESS TO OUR HIGHWAYS, OBAMA COULDN'T DO IT FAST ENOUGH, DESPITE THE FACT THESE BIG MEXICAN TRUCKS HAVE GARNERED OVER A MILLION SAFETY VIOLATIONS, AND ARE TRANSPORTS FOR MEXICAN DRUGS AND HUMAN CARGO!

NARCOMEX BELOW OUR BORDERS, OVER THEM, AND VIA TUNNELS, UNDER THEM… Is the U.S. a Welfare Satellite of the Mexican Ruling Class?

MEXICO HAS MORE BILLIONAIRES THAN SAUDI ARABIA OR SWITZERLAND. THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD IS NO LONGER BILL GATES, IT IS MEXICAN CARLOS SLIM, WHO NOW OWNS 10% OF THE NEW YORK TIMES,  WHICH HAS BECOME MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA AMNESTY AND EXPANDED MEX SUPREMACY.

MEXICO IS ABLE TO CREATE THESE BILLIONAIRES OUT OF its MEAGER ECONOMY BY EXPORTING THEIR POOR, ILLITERATE, CRIMINAL AND PREGNANT FOR OUR JOBS, “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING (L.A. County pays out $600 million per year for this). BECAUSE MEXICO’S SECOND LARGES LEGAL STREAM OF REVENUE ARE PROCEEDS SENT BACK HOME FROM THE UNITED STATES, WHERE EVERYTHING IS FREE OR SPECIALLY PRICED FOR ILLEGALS.

MEXICO DOES NOTHING FOR ITS POOR BUT EXPORT THEM.

*

WIKILEAKS EXPOSES OBAMA'S OPEN BORDERS AGENDA:

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/alipac-william-gheen-exposes-wikileaks.html

*

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-exposed-obamas-la-raza-open.html

“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” ….. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

Secret WikiLeaks Document Confirms North American Union Plan
May 18, 2011

For Continental Release

CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)

The secret document recently released by WikiLeaks reveals a high level US ambassador promoting a merger of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into one combined consumer and labor market, with a common currency and a mutual electronic security perimeter with less focus on physical borders.

The secret documents reveal a well developed plan that advocates secrecy, an incremental approach as not to alarm the public. The document clearly states, that the plan is to prevent US efforts to protect citizens from terrorism or disease from interfering with commerce and other financial interests. The documents also advocate that promotion of this plan focus on "individual firms, industries or travelers, and
especially consumers" instead of the nations as a whole.


This high level leak appears to validate earlier concerns by many groups of plans to create a new government, which would supersede the sovereignty of America, Canada, and Mexico in a way similar to the European Union. Critics of these merger plans call the plan the North American Union. Supporters of the plan call it the North American Community or North American Integration (NAI).

"It is conspiracy, but it is no theory," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "These traitors are trying to conceal their plans, but they are out in the open now. They are trying to force an economic union on America that is not ratified by the US Congress, not authorized by the US Constitution, and not approved of by the American public. This plan is being facilitated by the nonenforcement of our existing immigration and border laws."

Americans were shocked to learn in 2005 and 2006 that millions of illegal aliens had been imported into America and were now marching in the streets demanding legalization, citizenship, voting rights, and taxpayer resources. Federal lawmakers loyal to the North American Integration plans have claimed "our immigration systems are broken" when in fact the immigration systems have been compromised by those advocating a merger of the populations of America, Mexico, and Canada.

Other examples of this economic union plan which has been pursued by Presidents Bush and Obama, can be found in the writings of Dr. Robert Pastor of American University, in releases by the Council on Foreign Relations such as "Building a North American Community," and in announcements made by heads of state in all three countries supporting the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

"North American integration requires American disintegration. Americans would never voluntarily enter into this devilish arrangement that would disintegrate the United States beneath a larger super state; and a new government which would destroy the existing US Constitution and borders," said William Gheen. "This is why these elite banking, business, and political influences are flooding America with rampant illegal immigration and hyper legal immigration. They are conquering the freedom-loving innocent citizens of America by bringing in outsiders who will replace us incrementally in our jobs and homes."

While news of this recent WikiLeaks disclosure is circulating on the Internet, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is releasing the news and documents to the nation today via national press release.

American citizens are encouraged to take appropriate steps to organize in defense of the nation, and prepare to politically challenge and defeat those pursuing this unlawful, unconstitutional, and nation-destroying agenda.

William Gheen is releasing a more detailed article today titled "WikiLeaks Releases Secret Files: North American Integration" which will be distributed nationally along with this press release.

Article
American Disintegration for North American Integration Plan
http://www.alipac.us/article-6305-thread-1-0.html

Copies of the WikiLeaks documents can be seen at this link...

Leaked Secret WikiLeaks Documents about Integration
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1226350.html#1226350

*

Cables reveal US considered “state of exception” in Mexico

By Kevin Kearney
15 December 2010

A series of US diplomatic cables from late 2009 released by WikiLeaks summarize an on-going discussion between the US government and Mexican Secretary of Defense (SEDENA) General Guillermo Galvan Galvan on the merits of declaring “a state of exception”—roughly the equivalent to martial law or a state of siege—to facilitate military operations against Mexico’s civilian population.

Ultimately, the cables indicate, the US embassy rejected the idea, not out of any concern for democratic rights or international legality, but rather because such a declaration could give the Mexican legislature some oversight in the country’s disastrous US-backed “war on drugs.”

The principal cable—reference number 3101—gives a breathtaking glimpse of the US involvement in and guidance of the war and the sheer subservience of the Mexican government to the dictates of Washington on the most essential questions of national sovereignty. It begins by noting that Defense Secretary Galvan Galvan had suggested the possibility of invoking “article 29” of the Mexican Constitution—declaring a “state of exception”—so as to provide “more solid legal grounds” for the military’s role in the “domestic counternarcotics fight.”

Galvan Galvan’s sudden preoccupation with the legality of the war in this period stems from the fact that the massive domestic deployment of the military throughout the country in late 2007 was launched with nothing more than a sudden executive declaration by President Felipe Calderon—tacitly accepted by every major political party in the country to this day.

Moreover, by early 2009—just before these cables were written—Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), an independent government agency, had reported that the Mexican army was engaged in systematic torture, exposing a practice of arbitrary detentions, beatings and electrical shocks against innocent Mexicans with little or no connection to the drug trade.

Both Calderon and Galvan Galvan were directly cited in these denunciations, which soon attracted international attention. In a 2009 interview with the Washington Post, the mayor of Ciudad Juarez, José Reyes Ferriz, said President Felipe Calderón and Defense Secretary Guillermo Galván Galván were then involved in every major decision regarding security in the city, adding that Ciudad Juarez was intended as a “national model” for other cities in Mexico. The growing public rejection of the war and Calderon’s waning popularity seem to have triggered anxiety that high officials could be held accountable for the bloodshed.

The cable describes Galvan Galvan as “lamenting” the lack of legal basis for the domestic activities of the Mexican military and notes “public perception that the Armed Forces lack the appropriate authority to conduct such operations.” To this end, the cable’s author calculates that the declaration of a “state of exception” under article 29 could provide “a temporary legal cover” for the military’s activities and “allow it to focus more on operations and less on its critics”—in other words, continue to illegally detain, torture and murder Mexican citizens with impunity.

Other cables unintentionally confirm the accusations of human rights organizations against the military. While they claim that most of the country was relatively safe in 2009, and most of the war victims were either state forces or drug traffickers, they also reveal that there is no process of investigation to determine whether the dead were actually drug traffickers and nearly no information to determine in advance the identity of drug traffickers in a given area. Such statements illustrate a situation on the ground in Mexico where anyone unfortunate enough to be detained or killed by the military is considered a “drug trafficker” as a matter of course.

The cable’s author weighs the benefits of article 29 before ultimately deciding against it: “the GOM (government of Mexico) could elect to apply the article in a zone of perceived crisis, such as Ciudad Juarez…suspend rights…including freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of passage, or some tenets of legal due process. The military, for example, might be granted broader detention authorities.”

In the most telling portion of the cable, the author cites the major detriment of such a declaration, “This would give Congress at least nominal oversight over the military’s counternarcotics operations, a role it has sought but not had up to this point.” The import of this statement should not be overlooked.

While the US has trumpeted Mexico’s “war on drugs” as a noble fight to defend democracy to which all law-abiding Mexicans are committed, behind closed doors it acknowledges that the war is largely unpopular, is very likely illegal and is being waged without any real plan or legislative oversight—a situation the US government and its well-placed Mexican counterparts carefully seek to perpetuate.

Yet the Embassy doesn’t reject the option of military rule outright, saying, “the possibility of such a declaration cannot be discounted at some future date.”

Since early 2007, the US government has provided millions in cash, military technology and trainers, promising billions more via the “Merida Initiative.” In spite of years of senseless carnage and systemic human rights violations—including torture—the Obama administration proudly calls itself a “full partner” in Mexico’s bloody drug war, deploying unknown numbers of US government agents, expensive domestic surveillance equipment and military hardware south of the US border.

The US government’s expanding involvement in Mexico’s national life via the war is demonstrated in several other cables in which embassy officials repeatedly enthuse about the relationship between the two governments. This is fleshed out in cable number 2882, dated October 5, 2009.

Under the heading “GOM wants full transfer of intel technology and training,” the cable notes the Mexican attorney general’s desire for “a more general exchange of intelligence information and capacity, not the case-by-case exchange we now have.” The cable goes on to state that the FBI is helping to create a cyber-unit in Mexico. On this subject, the two governments discussed the benefits of such a program being “expanded and replicated more broadly” throughout the country.

After asking US officials for even more training, technology and resources, Mexico’s then undersecretary for governance, Geronimo Gutierrez Fernandez, expresses his concern that the government would be unable to perpetuate the war. Under the heading “We have 18 months,” Gutierrez Fernandez warned embassy officials. “We have 18 months and if we do not produce a tangible success that is recognizable to the Mexican people, it will be difficult to sustain the confrontation into the next administration.”

Gutierrez Fernandez then acknowledged the government has already lost control of some areas of the country—something never publicly admitted by a member of Calderon’s cabinet. Significantly, the cable’s author also notes Gutierrez Fernandez’s request for “joint operations” involving US forces over the next two years in selective areas of the country.

While the language of the cables constantly refers to the budding relationship between the two military forces as one of “greater integration,” what is revealed is Mexico’s complete domination by US imperialism via the drug war. The discussions recounted in the cables portray a cabal of Mexican politicians and military men acting as the direct agents of US foreign policy in the country.

Oddly, every proposal for a greater US role in the country is portrayed as the suggestion—or in some cases the desperate plea—of a Mexican official, while statements and suggestions of US officials are largely omitted or reduced to a bare minimum. This doesn’t square with the balance of forces between the two countries and is likely a consciously adopted way of providing deniability on controversial issues.

Considering the fact that the US Department of Defense—through its Joint Forces Command (USJFC)—had actually suggested the US military may need to intervene in Mexico’s drug war about eight months prior to the cables broaching a declaration of a “state of exception,” it is hard to see this as simply the initiative of Galvan Galvan, without any input or direction from the US government.

The question naturally arises: what is the aim of all this US-Mexico military integration? Cable number 3061 from October 23, 2009, summarizes a meeting between Calderon and US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that outlined a suggested shift in military focus from drug traffickers to political opponents and a possible regional role for the newly “integrated” Mexican military.

After declaring to Blair his belief that “Hugo Chavez funded the PRD opposition during the presidential campaign nearly four years ago”—referring to the sustained mass civil disobedience rejecting Calderon’s election in 2006 in favor of the Revolutionary Democratic Party candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador—Calderon encouraged the US to take into account “the link among Iran, Venezuela, drugs, narcotics trafficking, and rule of law issues.”

According to the cable’s author, Calderon “emphasized that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is active everywhere,” while assuring Blair that Mexico was attempting to isolate Venezuela through the Rio Group. However, he “exhorted the U.S. to watch Guatemala and Belize, since their internal weaknesses make them vulnerable.” Significantly, the cable notes, “Calderon indicated that he would assess the possibility of creating a joint strike force capability” with the US military.

Calderon’s comments about Chavez are telling in the sense that the popular rejection of his presidency and allegations of fraud in 2006 were, at root, a manifestation of anger over worsening living conditions and economic polarization in the country. That Calderon cites such mass political opposition from the left as an issue of national security to his US sponsors serves as a warning to the working class. The entire legal and military framework erected via the drug war and backed by US militarism can and will be directed against any serious political opposition arising in Mexico or Central America.

*

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

Join the blog!

Heather Mac Donald: White House doesn't want to enforce immigration

By: Heather Mac Donald
OpEd Contributor
August 4, 2010

The real motivation for the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration statute was the only one not mentioned in the department's brief: The Obama administration has no intention of enforcing the immigration laws against the majority of illegal aliens already in the country.

It is that policy alone which conflicts with SB 1070: Arizona wants to enforce the law; the Obama administration does not. Reasonable minds can differ on whether that conflict puts Arizona in violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

But what is indisputable is that the failure of the federal government to openly acknowledge the real ground for its opposition to SB 1070 has rendered incoherent not just its own public arguments against the law, but the judicial ruling which largely rubber stamps those arguments as well.

The Arizona statute affirms the power of a local police officer or sheriff's deputy to inquire into someone's immigration status, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally, and if doing so is practicable. Under SB 1070, such an inquiry may occur only during a lawful stop to investigate a non-immigration offense.

Both the Justice Department and U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, in striking down most of SB 1070, couched their opposition to the statute exclusively in terms of its effect on legal, as opposed to illegal, aliens. SB 1070, Judge Bolton wrote, would impermissibly burden legal immigrants already in the country by subjecting them to unwarranted immigration checks.

There are two problems with this line of argument: First, it ignores the fact that Congress has already anticipated and approved precisely the sort of local immigration inquiries that Judge Bolton now finds unconstitutional. Second, the argument would make all immigration enforcement impossible.

In 1996, Congress banned so-called sanctuary policies, by which cities and states prohibit their employees from working with federal immigration authorities regarding illegal aliens. It was in the federal interest, Congress declared, that local and federal authorities cooperate in the "apprehension, detention or removal of [illegal] aliens."

In pursuance of that mandate, the federal government operates an immigration clearinghouse, the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), to provide just the sort of immigration-status information to local and state law-enforcement officials that SB 1070 seeks.

It is therefore absurd to now claim, as Judge Bolton and the Obama Administration do, that such local inquiries conflict with the federal immigration scheme. It is even more absurd to argue that the risk that a legal alien will be questioned about his immigration status makes the alleged conflict unconstitutional.

Any immigration enforcement carries the possibility that a legal alien or U.S. citizen will be stopped and questioned. The only way to guarantee that legal aliens are never asked to present their immigration papers is to suspend immigration enforcement entirely. (The same possibility of stopping innocent people for questioning applies to law enforcement generally; that possibility has never been held to invalidate the police investigative power.)

If Congress intended to create such a blanket ban on asking legal aliens for proof of legal residency, it could have revoked the 1952 law requiring aliens to carry their certificate of alien registration. Such a requirement makes sense only on the assumption that legal aliens will upon occasion be asked to prove their legal status.

Such unpersuasive reasoning suggests that something else is going on. That something is the fact that SB 1070 would have put the Obama administration in the uncomfortable position of repeatedly telling Arizona's law enforcement officers that it is not interested in detaining or deporting the illegal aliens that they have encountered in the course of their duties; the law, in other words, would have exposed the administration's de facto amnesty policy.

And SB 1070 would have shown that immigration-law enforcement can work simply by creating a deterrent to illegal entry and presence. Even before it went into operation, the Arizona law was already inducing illegal aliens to leave the state, according to news reports.

Illegal aliens are virtually absent from the Justice Department's brief or from Judge Bolton's opinion. Despite this studied avoidance, it's time to have a public debate about how much immigration enforcement this country wants and which enforcement policies--the administration's or Arizona's -- best represent the public will.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and co-author of The

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/White-House-doesn_t-want-to-enforce-immigration-1007060-99891419.html#ixzz0w8gI2nha

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

FAIRUS.org

JUDICIALWATCH.org

ALIPAC.us

THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”

*

MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA – THE MEXICAN FASCIST POLITICAL PARTY. THESE FIGURES ARE DATED. CNN CALCULATES THAT WAGES ARE DEPRESSED $300 - $400 BILLION PER YEAR!

“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor

*