Bush's personal war on oil-producing countries: Which one will be next? Russia? China? The US?

Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous cautionary message is more profound than ever today:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me --
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

by Jane Stillwater

Since 2000, George Bush's foreign policy has been visible, steady and consistent -- to seize every oil-producing country in the world by any means necessary. And so far, Mr. Bush is proving the old addage, "Nothing succeeds like success.

"Snagging Saudi Arabia was a snap. Bush simply continued the policy employed by his father -- kissing the Saudi royal family's collective booty. It's a simple technique but quite effective. Check Saudi Arabia off the list.

Iraq was next. Strategy? Kill off all the Iraqis and the last one standing signs over the oil. So far, it's worked like a charm.

The Sudan was easy. Just give massive amounts of weapons to its leaders and let them do the dirty work for him.

Nigeria? Send in the Robber Barons, create anarchy and seal the deal.

Let's see. Who is next? Venezuela. No-brainer on this one. Plot a CIA coup. The first one didn't go too well but it's still early days.

Iran is a cinch. With 10,000 missiles trained on its oil fields, they are kidding themselves if they think they stand a chance.

Who else has oil? Russia has lots of oil. And China. But like virgins accidentally stumbling into a biker rally, they are gathering in their skirts. Unlike said virgins, however, China and Russia are armed -- locked and loaded. Bush hasn't quite figured out his strategy here. Yet.''

This leaves just one more major oil-producing country left on the list. America. Which techniques will Bush use here? Booty-kissing? Check. Robber Barons? Check. Send in the CIA? Check. Try to incite civil war? Check. 10,000 missiles? Check. Arm the leaders with massive amounts of weapons? Check....

When Bush came for the Saudis, we did nothing. When he came for Iraq, we did nothing. When he came for the Sudan, Nigeria and Venezuela, we did nothing. Now he is going for Iran. Then Russia, China and the US?

Bush's foreign policy has been visible, steady and consistent since he took the White House in 2000. "Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left to speakup."

http://jpstillwater.blogspot.com

LinkHere

Making Martial Law Easier
Published: February 19, 2007

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate

LinkHere