Eric Holder, and other News

The current controversy with Eric Holder relates to the Fast and Furious scandal. The ATF gun walking scandal is about the ATF allowing thousands of guns to be brought by suspected arms traffickers. The ATF created straw purchases on behalf of Mexican drug cartels. This was done in the ATF's mind in trying to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico. This plan didn't work since firearms were found in criminal hands. Issa said that over 200 Mexicans have been killed as the product of the botched Operation Fast and Furious programs. From 2011 to the present, Congress is having hearing to see documents about the total composition of the Operation Fast and Furious program. Eric Holder is the Attorney General of America. Republicans claim that Holder was negligent in his actions. Many of them allowed Holder to be voted for contempt. In their minds, Holder should resign for his lax actions in handling the whole Operation Fast and Furious affair. Of course, Attorney General Eric Holder would adamantly disagree with the previous assumptions. There have been questions about a possible link between Fast and Furious and the death of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata on February 15, 2011. There is no doubt that the Fast and Furious program shouldn't of existed in the first place. The US Department of Justice allowed ATF, FBI, and DEA agents to illegally acquire firearms through straw purchasers in states like Arizona, and then intentionally flooding the black market around the Mexican border regions with thousands of illegal guns. This action only promotes the agenda of extremists who try to demonize sincere gun sellers in US border states (and is a means where more restrictions on the Second Amendment can come about in the near future). The President cited executive privilege as an excuse to prevent certain documents from being released to the public. Many federal agents and other innocent people have been murdered by gangs via this immoral War on Drugs. So, it's obvious that this Fast and Furious policy is something I can't support. I can't support covert acts of gunrunning to criminals by the government. I don't agree with the 1% and I am economically progressive. Yet, this is some stuff (i.e. Fast and Furious) that I can't in good conscience support. Yet, the Republicans are wrong on many points. First, this Fast and Furious program wasn't created by Holder. It was formed during the Bush administration. These acts started before Barack Obama was elected President of the United States (from 2006 under the Bush administration). Eric Holder ended the program. Do I think that the Republicans are playing politics with this situation? Of course, this has happened before. Witnesses prove that Eric Holder and President Barack Obama had no direct involvement in that Fast and the Furious program at all. Rep. Issa is having his witch hunt indeed. This doesn't mean that the current administration are made up of gods. The Obama administration is still accountable for their errors from a Bush lite foreign policy to its anti-civil liberty agenda at home. It's a fact that the feds for decades have been involved in gun running, drug smuggling, and other evil covert acts via the CIA (and other entities) for decades. Eric Holder turned in thousands of documents to Issa and his investigators. Eric Holder is a lot of things, but he isn't involved in this Fast and Furious controversy at all. While, I abhor the Fast and Furious Program. I don't think that Holder had anything to do with it.

The global elite influences economic systems from communism to capitalism. Back in 1677, Sir William Temple helped to arrange the marriage of William of Orange and Princess Mary of the UK. Later on, one agent named Thomas Wharton (along with other factions) caused the Revolution of 1688. This replaced James II (a Stuart) with William and Mary as the rulers of Britain. William allowed the British treasury to borrow heavily from the Bank of Amsterdam. Some of these bankers received a royal charter to form the Bank of England. The bank of England by 1698 was owed 16 million pounds by the British treasury. The elite allowed use the policies of indebtedness in order to get nation-states to be under the control of the establishment. Wharton was a Hanoverian like King George III of England. King George was crowned in 1760. Meanwhile, the American colonists were independently printing their own script for currency. The British Empire didn't like this action. So, the British crown enacted measures like the Stamp Act, the Coercive Act, etc. to counter this reality. The oppressive laws from the British Empire and the colonists' independent monetary actions according to Founding Father Benjamin Franklin was a big cause of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The United States of America was created, but the European elites wanted to control America further. In the world, we have the thesis of capitalism and the antithesis of communism. As early as 1828, there was the first commune in American soil. It was founded by Robert Dale Owens and Frances Wright. It was founded in New Harmony, Indiana. They worked with Orestes Brownson to form the Workingmen's Party. Later, Karl Marx would be financed by the League of the Just to write the Communist Manifesto in 1848. The internationalists in Europe exploited the American Civil War as a means to try to divide and conquer America. The Federal Reserve Banking system and the internationalist BIS have been supported by the Rockefeller & Rothschild banking interests for decades.  JP Morgan loved the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 including Col. House. President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill into law. It allowed the Federal Reserve to gain a huge influence in the issuing of credit and interest in American society. In November 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote to Col. House that they both knew the U.S. government was under the control of “a financial element in our larger centers” ever since the days of President Jackson. The BIS was the central bank of all the world’s central banks,.  The BIS began in the 1930s and it came under the control of the Nazis with American Thomas McKittrick heading the BIS from 1940-1946. The BIS still exists today in 2012. 

One of the greatest parts of World History was when nationalist and independence movements grew after the end of WWII. One of the many positive products of World War II was that overt colonialism died. European imperialism was destroyed impart because WWII ravished Europe. Europe was nearly destroyed and the Europeans didn't have the time nor resources to maintain colonialism in other places globally. Even the charter of the United Nations granted guaranteed colonial populations the right of self-determination. As Dr. Martin Luther King eloquently said, people have the right to execute self-determination. Therefore, areas in Africa and Asia fought for independence beyond the interests of European imperialists. Jomo Kenyatta's leadership caused the Brits to leave Kenya. He organized (with the help of the Mau Mau and others) to defeat the British forces. It was these revolutions that ended this tyranny by some of the Europeans. Some force were involved in these special revolutions, but was the American Revolution nonviolent? Was the War of 1812 nonviolent? Was the Civil War to defeat the Confederate rebels nonviolent? Was WWII to ended fascism in Nazi Germany nonviolent? So, sometimes it is necessary to have self defense in order for human beings to have their own liberation. Now, this post-WWII revolution caused more Africans to have more respect of their cultures and heritage. Economic exploitation is evil. Great Britain, France, Belgium, and Portugal lost their colonies in the period after WWII. Most peaceful acts came in the liberation of West Africa. Nigeria, Ghana, and other nations became independent rapidly after WWII. There was the war on independence in Algeria that caused Algeria to be freed from France domination. In South Africa, it took long decades for South Africa to extinguish the retrograde policy of apartheid. Nelson Mandela would become the first black President of the Republic of South Africa. India is a special situation too. For centuries, those of the British Empire oppressed the Indian peoples via colonialism, discrimination, and oppression. Leaders like Gandhi activated boycotts and nonviolent protests in order for India to be liberated from British domination. Mohandas Gandhi popularized the acts of civil disobedience and passive resistance (or the refusal of human beings to follow unjust laws even risking jail time) in India. Gandhi tried his best to bridge the gap (or the social, political, and religious differences) between Muslims and Hindus, but the division was so great that something occurred. Mostly Muslim peoples formed Pakistan and India is a mostly Hindu nation. India today is the world's largest democratic nation. India is a federal system with giving many powers to the states. For the record, yes, I oppose the caste system, color discrimination, and any form of bigotry. There are the nations of Bangladesh (called East Pakistan years ago) and Sri Lanka (which was formerly called Ceylon). Now, Jawaharlal Nehru was a close associate of Gandhi. Nehru wanted a western style industrialization in India. He helped to establish the 1950 Constitution that sought to prohibit caste discrimination. Then and now, there are ethnic and religious liberty issues in India. India is very much growing economically as well. 




As people get older, people witness the complex nature of the Kennedy Presidency. To understand that era of the Great Frontier, you have to comprehend JFK's policies on Africa (like the Congo crisis, the Cuban Missile crisis, his economic polices, and other events. During that time, he saw the murder of Patrice Lumumba, the Laotian crisis, the construction of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs disasters, the issue of civil rights (with James Meredith going into ole Miss), the Freedom Riders, and other issues. Even Ted Sorenson's biography entitled, "Kennedy" is over 800 pages. President John F. Kennedy made it a consistent policy to not commit combat troops into Vietnam. Almost all of his advisers urged Kennedy to massively militarily engage Vietnam, but he refusal to follow that course as early as 1961. Of course, President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 decided to put massive military troops to fight in Vietnam. LBJ's decision was supported by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower. John F. Kennedy as a Senator visited Saigon in 1951. His travels into that part of the world made a strong social impact in his thinking of foreign policy issues (especially as it pertains to the Vietnam War). JFK meet a man working for the State Department named Edmund Gullion. He influenced Kennedy so greatly, that he was a central figure in Kennedy's policey on the huge Congo crisis, Loas, and Vietnam. Gullion told JFK that the battle in Vietnam wasn't about Communism vs. capitalism, but colonialism vs. independence. Gullion wanted to tell Kennedy that France could  never defeat Vietnam, because they couldn't extinguish the nationalistic appeal of Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh promoted guerilla warfare in Vietnam. This allowed the French to be defeated via a guerrilla war of attrition. So when Kennedy returned to America he expressed these ideas in a speech he gave in November of 1951 via the following words: “This is an area of human conflict between civilizations striving to be born and those desperately trying to retain what they had had for so long.” He then added, “the fires of nationalism so long dormant have been kindled and are now ablaze. … Here colonialism is not a topic for tea-talk discussion but is the daily fare for millions of men.” (Mahoney, p. 14). John F. Kennedy told told Arthur Schlesinger, “The war in Vietnam could be won only so long as it was their war. If it were ever converted into a white man’s war, we would lose as the French had lost a decade earlier.” Not to mention that John F. Kennedy opposed the 1954 Operation Vulture Plan of President Eisenhower, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, CIA Director Allen Dulles, and Vice President Richard Nixon. Operation Vulture was about the U.S. using 150 American air sorties even the use of 3 tactical atomic weapons in order for Ho Chi Minh to be defeated (and allow French colonialism to reign). Kennedy said that this new Dulles policy and the threat of atomic retaliation can't defeat guerrilla warfare. Kennedy said that the guerrillas had the sympathy and support of the people in Vietnam. That is why Operation Vulture was called off. Kennedy sent a May 1953 letter to John Foster Dulles asking him 47 questions about his present and future plans for U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. Eisenhower falsely assumed that the fall of Vietnam will cause Communism to spread all over Southeast Asia (via the domino effect). The Cold War was agitated by many factions from Churchill to the Long Letter from the American diplomat & Pilgrim Society member George Kennan of February of 1946. Kennan wanted containment to handle Communism or the usage of deals, secret tactics, and not direct confrontation to handle Communism in the world. In 1957, Kennedy spoke on Algeria. So, President John F. Kennedy wasn't some malleable, reactionary Cold warrior as the Establishment would have you to believe. He supported Algerian independence from France. he supported the agenda of Patrice Lumumba against Belgian colonialists. By 1963, President John F. Kennedy used his intermediary Attwood in order for America to make a better, more progressive relationship with Cuba. Carlos Lechuga was the Cuban ambassador to the United Nation. Carlos Lechuga said that Fidel Castro liked Kennedy's American University speech. Fidel and JFK were in near talks about future normalization among America and Cuba. President John F. Kennedy wanted to meet up with President Sukarno of Indonesia in 1964. Sukarno was a nationalist and Kennedy supported the international nationalist movements in the Third World. Kennedy wanted negotiation, trade, and world peace, which refutes the old slander that JFK was some hardcore Cold Warrior. He disagreed with Communism philosophically, but he was dedicated to world peace by 1963.

More encroachments on our basic freedoms is ever real. Now, the militarization of our local governments is still real. The NDAA that locks up people indefinitely if they are suspected to be involved in terrorism. The administration claims that it doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, but the law is mainly applied in his administration. Future administrations may act and place more restrictions on human freedoms. Also, it is even morally wrong to indefinitely capture another human being even if that human being is a non-U.S. citizen. Even some members of the U.S. government and even some in the Pentagon were against the law.  When Congress passed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), it included provisions that authorized U.S. armed forces to detain persons who are captured in the conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” Section 1021 entitled “AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE” allows for the President (whoever that may be) “...to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force … to detain covered persons …pending disposition under the law of war.” Now, phrases of associated forces can be ambiguously defined as U.S. citizens since the phrase describes any who associated with al-Qaeda. Even "covered person" can be defined as citizens, because covered person doesn't exclude U.S. citizens explicitly in the wording. A recent report from the Congressional Research Service fleshes out the law of detention as set forth in Section 1021, identifying what is known to be true as well as what is unsettled and unresolved. It is perfectly clear, for example, that a U.S. citizen who fights alongside “enemy forces” against the United States on a foreign battlefield could be lawfully detained. This was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. This question isn't settled since May 16, 2012 a newly appointed federal district judge, Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued a ruling, hailed by many, which preliminarily enjoins (prohibits) enforcement of the indefinite detention provisions (Sec 1021) of the NDAA 2012. Operation Garden  Plot is a code name  for an American policy to allow the military to handle dissent during especially in times of emergencies. Pentagon's NORTHCOM (or the Northern Command) deals with this Operation Garden Plot policy. NORTHCOM, America’s “domestic military command,” is tasked with various “counter-terror,” “homeland defense” and “homeland security” activities, including “civil disturbance suppression” operations, and “assisting law enforcement” within Canada, the United States and Mexico. These policies can potentially deteriorate basic human freedoms of individuals in America, because draconian policies can come during times of emergencies. We know about the NY Times reporting on the kill lists that allow the President to assassinate even U.S. citizens accused of terrorism. This is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments blatantly. You can not kill citizens without due process.  The violation of Posse Comitatus is ever real. Posse Comitatus of 1878 is a law that prevents the military from acting as an law enforcement agent upon American citizens. New Pentagon policies and laws allow the Pentagon to use law enforcement policies on the people. “Current Obstacles to Fully Preparing Title 10 Forces for Homeland Defense and Civil Support” by Commander James S. Campbell, United States Navy, May 2008 and, “The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Law Enforcement Title” by COL (Ret) John R. Brinkerhoff, December 2004, both seek to legitimize and undercut the status and importance of the Posse Comitatus Act. It is not right to see the TSA to molest people. It is not right to see militarized police monitor local places. It is not just to witness the Patriot Act ot continue to fester, which violate basic human freedoms either. So, people from across the political spectrum agree that a separation between the military and police is a great importance to maintain a truly liberty-enriched society. 

By Timothy