Strait of Hormuz: Gulf of Tonkin Revisited


January 15, 2008
by Zen Garcia
Share and Bookmark this Page Subscribe to the Populist Party RSS Feed

"Iran speedboats 'threatened suicide attack on US' in Strait of Hormuz" the headlines of the Times Online exclaimed about the so-called incident where 5 Iranian speedboats were said to have threatened American warships with hostile intention. The White House in response issued a stern warning to Tehran claiming that such actions amounted to acts of war.   more... The Pentagon claimed that US forces were only moments away from opening fire on the Iranian speedboats before they veered off and quickly sped away. The video released detailing the muffled exchange of dialogue between the so-called suicide bombers and U.S. Navy personnel was cited as Iran's intent to start a war with America.

"We urge the Iranians to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future," said Gordon Johnson, spokesman for the White House's National Security Council. The decider himself boasted to reporters in the Rose Garden, hours before he left for the Middle East to attempt bolstering support for American foreign-policy. "We viewed it as a provocative act. It is a dangerous situation, and they should not have done it, pure and simple."

The video released by the Pentagon relays this exchange:

IRANIAN VOICE: I am coming to you.

US NAVAL OFFICER: Inbound small craft, you're approaching a coalition warship operating in international waters. Your identity is not know. Your intentions are unclear. You're sailing into danger and may be subject to defensive measures. Request you establish communications now or alter your course immediately to remain clear. Request you alter course immediately to remain clear.

IRANIAN VOICE: You will explode after a few minutes.

US NAVAL OFFICER: "You will explode after a few minutes."

Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman said that the American vessels were in international waters, making a normal transit through the Gulf. He boasted that Iranians were operating at distances and speeds that showed "reckless, dangerous and potentially hostile intent. At least some were visibly armed." American mainstream media was quick to pick up the story and relay it to the world without verifying the facts or details behind the Pentagon's claim. This was the same thing they did prior to the Iraq invasion when weapons of mass destruction and mushroom clouds on American soil were also touted in the same fear mongering kind of way.

The reason I titled this article "Gulf of Tonkin Revisited" is because this same exact thing was done prior to the Vietnam War. For those that do not know, the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin which instigated the entire Vietnam War was based solely on a pair of supposed attacks allegedly carried out by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam targeting 2 Navy destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy on August 2 and 4, 1964.

These incidents lead to Congressional passage of the Southeast Asia Resolution, granting Lyndon Johnson authorization to assist any southeastern Asian country whose government was considered threatened by "communist aggression". The resolution gave America and Johnson legal justification for quick involvement in Viet Nam. Recently, in two separate declassified intelligence reports released in 2005 and in 2008, the National Security Agency verified that it was our U.S. Navy destroyer the Maddox which fired first upon North Vietnamese patrol boats. The second report verified that no attack even occurred on August 4 and that both incidents were exaggerated or fabricated to justify American involvement in Vietnam.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964. Followed later the same day by the New York Times hea  less

Fake News and Distorted Truths


December 11, 2007
by Zen Garcia
Share and Bookmark this Page Subscribe to the Populist Party RSS Feed

The Federal Emergency Management Association held a press conference on October 23rd, 2007 about efforts made during the California Wildfires in which at least 1,500 homes were destroyed , over 500,000 acres of land burned, 9 people died, 85 others injured, including at least 61 fire fighters. FEMA had given reporters only about 15 minutes prior notice to attend   more...the impending press conference. FEMA then set up a telephone conference line so that reporters could listen in to the conference but not ask direct questions.

Why FEMA would expect journalists to be able to show up at a news conference in which they were only allotted 15 minutes to make and attend doesn't make sense unless their intent was not to have reporters cover the event, but listen in to 'reporters' substituted by FEMA employees readily prepared to stage the press event. In this way, FEMA could control the scope and focus of questioning asked and answers delivered.

FEMA thought they were doing nothing wrong because this is how the government handles newscast, journalists, and the Free Press. Both the questions and the answers are controlled so that the subject matter and delivery of that subject matter are controlled for specific result. I doubt that this 'fake conference' was an accident because government routinely prepares, distributes, and manages fake news events similar to the one put on by FEMA that Tuesday.

When the mainstream news outlets found out that FEMA had staged the event and had their own staff question the leadership about their own performance during the California wildfires, FEMA's fakery and intention to mislead became the highlight story of evening news on every major broadcast across the country. The fact that they held a news briefing with edited script and fake reporters was quickly chastised by every major player in the mainstream press from ABC to Fox News. FEMA external affairs director John Philbin, who was about to start a new role as media chief for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was denied position because of his central role in the FEMA fake news fiasco.

"I should have cancelled it quickly. I did not have good situational awareness of what was happening," Philbin told CBS in a telephone interview. On October 27th, 2007, FEMA apologized for leading the staged news conference in which FEMA staff posed as journalists while real reporters listened in on a telephone conference line though barred from asking questions.

Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson released a statement on October 26th, 2007 stating:

FEMA's goal is to get information out as soon as possible, and in trying to do so we made an error in judgment. Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received. We are reviewing our press procedures and will make the changes necessary to ensure that all of our communications are straight forward and transparent. At FEMA, our focus is disaster operations and, in this case, it means working closely with the State of California to support their response to the devastating fires.

We're committed to being there for the State and being good partners. In working to do so we did not put enough focus on how we communicate to the public. The real story -- how well the response and recovery elements are working in this disaster -- should not be lost because of how we tried to meet the needs of the media in distributing facts. We can and must do better, and apologize for this error in judgment.

When questioned about the staged event, White House press Secretary Dana Perino said, "It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House or that we -- we certainly don't condone it. We didn't know about it beforehand. FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error judgment when they we  less

An Appeal to Our Active Duty Soldiers


November 27, 2007
by Zen Garcia
Share and Bookmark this Page Subscribe to the Populist Party RSS Feed

Honoring Veterans: Some reflections on our recent Veterans' Day

Would you allow foreign armies to kick in your doors, detain your family members indiscriminately, rape, brutalize, and torture your neighbors, friends, and family members without regard? Would you not, if that happened in America, create, lead, or join some kind of resistance or insurgency   more...to combat the situation?

My father, a Viet Nam vet, like soldiers of today, almost paid the ultimate sacrifice of duty to our country - his life. Having been over run by Viet Cong outside the province of Dau Teng during the height of the 1968 Tet offensive, the soldiers that did survive that assault forever count themselves among the lucky, living on bonus time.

The best man I've ever known, it wasn't 30 minutes before writing this that he called to tell me that he was lying dormant in a hospital bed struggling with a heart to weak to hold a steady rhythm. Veteran's Day, I wanted to honor he and our soldiers, memorializing his contribution and our veterans contributions to our flag.

Sunday, a church bell sounds from nearby sanctuary where people congregate to praise the greatness of our Lord and Creator, Son having died on the cross to defeat death and bring salvation to the world. I pray for my father's healing and quick recovery as I pray for the protection and quick return of our soldiers spread everywhere across the world fighting to uphold duty and honor in attempt to protect family and loved ones at home from ever having to experience the front-line horrors of war.

This day we remember the fallen, praising our active duty soldiers especially those returning with life long disabilities or entombed in flag drapped casket. And though they are flown in under the cover of night with the honor of press coverage being banned by the decider who doesn't want the public to know how many die daily, Bush cannot hide the staggering numbers of returning veterans struggling to manage return to civilian disability.

Bush cannot hide the number of families and loved ones that have endured loss and are everywhere weeping. He can't hide the staggering numbers of veterans, 1 out of every 4 homeless sleeping on the streets. He cannot hide nor deny the staggering amount of soldiers returning home hopeless in their appeal to get help for what they've gone through.

It was just revealed that their is an epidemic of suicide among returning veterans. 17 of which take their lives daily doubling the average rate of suicide in America. "The US military is experiencing a 'suicide epidemic' with veterans killing themselves at the rate of 120 a week, according to an investigation by US television network CBS. At least 6,256 US veterans committed suicide in 2005 -- an average of 17 a day -- the network reported, with veterans overall more than twice as likely to take their own lives as the rest of the general population."

We, the public, must do something to honor all the veterans for their duty to our country, for believing in and holding affirm to those principles which lead our patriarchs to rebel against domineering forces which neither cared for nor catered to the peace, prosperity, or benefit of the people.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall   less

Why Did John Kerry Concede So Quickly in 2004?


October 25, 2007
by Zen Garcia
Comments | Trackback

Recently Paul Craig Roberts said in an article entitled, "America is No More," Naïve Americans who think they live in a free society should watch the video filmed by students at a John Kerry speech September 17, Constitution Day, at the University of Florida in Gainesville." The video depicts John Kerry picking a 21 year old journalism student, Andrew Meyer for question.

Bearing a copy of Greg Palast's   more...book, Armed Madhouse, Meyer asked if Kerry was aware that Palast's investigations determined that He and not the decider had actually won the election? He also asked why Kerry conceded the election so quickly when there were so many obvious examples of voter fraud and disenfranchisement? Meyer also confronted Kerry on his refusal to consider Bush's impeachment especially now that the whole world knows that Bush has been planning for possible preemptive nuclear strikes against Iran?

For exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and assembly, Meyer was quickly surrounded by police, seized, tasered, and then arrested on bogus charges. All this because of asking an uncomfortable question to the Senator or was it something more? Why not answer the question? It's not like the rest of us haven't wondered the same thing. I have had that question in mind since the night of November 2nd, 2004 when Kerry came out and conceded to his cousin and fellow skull and bones secret society member George W Bush. It was not an hour earlier that vice presidential candidate John Edwards gave speech to the media and the people that they meaning he and Kerry would not concede the election until every vote was actually counted.

It was all so obvious to the world and to anybody that closely followed the elections, that fraud was rampant and everywhere prevailing. The 2004 election results could have been rightfully contested for months following the results of that night and yet John Kerry conceded without even all of the Ohio provisional votes being fully counted. The provisional ballots could have easily won him the election. Paul Craig Roberts contended, "The question we should all ask is why did a United States Senator just stand there while Gestapo goons violated the constitutional rights of a student participating in a public event, brutalized him in full view of everyone, and then took him off to jail on phony charges?

Kerry's meekness not only in the face of electoral fraud, not only in the face of Bush's wars that are crimes under the Nuremberg standard, but also in the face of police goons trampling the constitutional rights of American citizens makes it completely clear that he was not fit to be president, and he is not fit to be a US senator. Usually when police violate constitutional rights and commit acts of police brutality they do it when they believe no one is watching, not in front of a large audience. Clearly, the police have become more audacious in their abuse of rights and citizens. What explains the new fearlessness of police to violate rights and brutalize citizens without cause?

The answer is that police, most of whom have authoritarian personalities, have seen that constitutional rights are no longer protected. President Bush does not protect our constitutional rights. Neither does Vice President Cheney, nor the Attorney General, nor the US Congress. Just as Kerry allowed Meyer's rights to be tasered out of him, Congress has enabled Bush to strip people, including American citizens, of constitutional protection and incarcerate them without presenting evidence."

Like Andrew Meyer, I too wondered why Kerry would rush to concede when the hope of the world was concentrated behind him. The whole world was ripe and begging for change, praying that the American people would vote in that change. The 2004 election had an atmosphere of prevailing possibility and unimaginable hope. The need for chan  less

Domestic Spying and the Banning of Dissent?


October 12, 2007
by Zen Garcia
Comment (1) | Trackback

In 1933, the Nazi SS established Dachua as the first concentration camp to house thousands of German political prisoners, whose ideas and belief systems were considered a threat to the then authoritarian regime. At first, mainly Jewish authors and artists whose words and works were considered subversive were subjected to arrest, economic restrictions, and various forms of harsh discrimination.

The   more...earliest targets for Nazi persecution in Germany were political opponents--primarily Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and trade union leaders identified by a large secretive domestic spying program which monitored the activities of the populace for the Nazi SS. The program was later expanded to include people with disabilities, those with homosexual leanings, and anyone else that opposed totalitarian rule.

In September 2002, $64 million dollars in research contracts were awarded to a secretive technology research-and-development office located near the headquarters of the NSA. The office was tasked with developing a program called Novel Intelligence from Massive Data. "NIMD funds research to ... help analysts deal with information-overload, detect early indicators of strategic surprise, and avoid analytic errors," reads a "Call for 2005 Challenge Workshop Proposals" released by the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA). The program is used to sort through the massive collections of data mining databases already developed and convert them into usable intelligence for federal agencies.

Governments have always used combating enemies - like communism or terrorism - while using fear to justify the loss of liberty. The Nazi's also targeted citizens in the guise of protecting the common good from "terrorists and terroristic elements." The domestic spying program of today is a rehash of the Nixon era attempt to assert executive privilege over the lives of ordinary citizens while using fear to convince the public that such a program is for our own security.

As in the late 1930's, the government is clandestinely developing databases on those groups and individuals who know about and dissent against corrupt governmental policies and the emergence of a fascist police control state. While Americans believe government is utilizing the warrant-less spying program to target "Al-Qaeda", citizens' advocacy and government watchdog groups have challenged the government's authority to spy on its citizens in court by citing countless FOIA requests which verify under judicial review, that the government has and still does utilize millions of dollars of taxpayers own money to pursue countless intelligence hours to task the infiltration surveillance and monitoring of political ecological antiwar peace loving groups and citizens unions.

Just who does the government think the enemy is?

On November 14, 2001, Angel Shamaya released an article entitled "Public Servants" Going After "Constitutional Terrorists"? which specifies, according to a Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation flyer released at the Arizona "Freedom in the 21st Century" gathering, just who the government considers domestic terrorists. Called the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the flyer details an effort by the FBI to "work jointly with local law enforcement."

The flyer specifically identifies and targets subversive elements the government considers 'domestic terrorists and domestic terrorism.' The brochure begins "If you encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force," and then proceeds in setting forth guidelines which law enforcement officers should look for when identifying 'domestic terrorists or terrorism' including such things as:

"Right winged extremists" or "Super Patriots or defenders of the US Constitution against the federal government and the United Nations." Groups of individuals involved in par  less