Fear of the Unknown or is it Fear of the Precedents?

Fear of the Unknown or is it Fear of the Precedents?

By Erick San Juan

Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero said he remained wary of other items in the agenda that could be concealed from the public about the 2009 Balikatan exercises which will be staged in the Bicol 'rebel infested’ areas on April, despite the props that the so called military exercises will reportedly focus more on engineering works and medical mission mainly in the provinces of Albay, Masbate and Sorsogon (PDI, Jan.16, 2009).

Escudero cautioned the government to make sure that the RP-US military exercises will not be for our disadvantage. He wants to make sure that such exercises will not antagonize and stir indifference from various sectors.

The good senator is worried that the military exercises could be used to allow US forces to interfere with the Philippine government's war against the insurgents in that region. The communist's rebels recent statement that they will increase their tactical offensives against the Balikatan could be construed as a signal for intervention.

The thinkers within the rebel group should learn from what's happening in Gaza and review the history of fighting and conflicts. Although there are victors and losers, but most of the time, it's a mutually assured destruction, one way or another. Some are witting and unwitting tool, others are agent provocateur, thus, justifying a bloody confrontation.

"Experts" in low intensity conflicts have assets from both side of the fence. Thus, a proxy war could ensue.

As, I wrote in my last blog article this month regarding Balikatan exercises, I would like to remind you again of the old saying, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!"

Zohan, the movie was right after all that people never realized that they were duped to fight each other and the ruling elites tolerate it to divide and rule.

By the way, why are the Zionists quiet when they are attacked by the same Jews like the movies produced, directed and starred by Jews like BORAT and ZOHAN?

Just asking?

What to Expect from Obama's Presidency by Erick San Juan

--- On Tue, 1/13/09, George Reyes wrote:
From: George Reyes
Date: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009, 9:47 AM

Sir/Madam

In connection with the inauguration of US President Barack Obama on Jan. 20, may we request a reaction/statement from your office so we can include it in our special report to be published in our newspaper -- Pinoy Today -- which is being distributed to our kababayans in California.

We will greatly appreciate if the materials can be sent before Thursday..

Maraming salamat po.

GEORGE REYES

Editor in chief

Pinoy Today


From: Erick San Juan
Subject: What to Expect from Obama's Presidency by Erick San Juan
To: pinoygeorge08@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009, 10:15 PM

Methinks that there will be no major changes in the U.S. policy, just in case, President-elect Barack Obama will be sworn in as the next president of the USA come January 20,especially in it's foreign policy agenda. Why am I cynical about his inauguration? It seems that several contending power blocs within and outside his "loop" is sabotaging it. They're not sure if they can trust Obama to follow their dictate. The Gaza siege is the litmus test. The 'globalists' are awaiting for him to make a statement,either policy or personal. Obama said that he has to respect the outgoing president(George Bush,Jr.) and will issue policy statements in his inaugural address. This irked the globalists and phase two of the 'program' is on, meaning, that Obama's presidency could be sabotaged by an expose of his citizenship, possible assassination or he will be treated like a "manchurian candidate", a must to follow orders or else. I wish him well, but he has to be forewarned. The stake is high. In this kind of political game,it's so hard to tell who's betraying who. He should always remember the lessons from the great American leaders like Presidents' Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. He should learn from history!

Has The U.S Bases Really Left R.P.?

Has The U.S Bases Really Left R.P.?

by Erick SanJuan

My associate, Mar Tecson, a fellow book author has sent an email which is very timely to what I'm writing. Who said that there's no more U.S. bases in the Philippines? The essay of Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of theAmerican Empire Project and author of The End of Victory Culture entitled "The U.S. Has 761Military Bases Across The Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It", is very revealing.

The usual reliable information that I've been getting from concerned citizens and free thinkers from the Philippines and abroad were confirmed by Tom in his article on the spread of American military bases and global empire. He cited how the U.S. operates either through diplomacy, humanitarian and economic aid, friendly visits, etc.

"Our soldiers not only arrive but stay interminably, if not indefinitely", Tom Engelhardt said. He disclosed, "Sometimes they live on military bases built to the tune of billions of dollars that amount to sizable American towns with accompanying amenities, sometimes on stripped down forward operating bases that may not even have showers. When those troops don't stay, often American equipment does, carefully stored for further use at tiny 'cooperative security locations', known informally as "LILY PADS", from which U.S. troops, like so many frogs, could assumedly leap quickly into a region in crisis.

He even cited a forward basing system during the Roman Empire who reportedly had an estimated 37 major military bases scattered around their dominions. During the British Empire, the Brits had 36 military bases worldwide. According to Pentagon records, there are 761 active U.S. military bases abroad which include portable bases, nation-states military camps where they are accommodated which act as part of the so called 'lily pads'. Despite the U.S. government and its local U.S. Embassy's denial, Tom confirmed that America garrisoned the earth, north to south, east to west, and even on the 'seven seas', through their various fleets and massive aircraft carriers with 5,000 to 6,000 personnels aboard, the population of an American town and functioning as floating bases.

Tom explained, "We don't care to know about it. We the American people, aided and abetted by our politicians, the Pentagon, the media are knee-deep in base denial." He has been so proud before that the U.S. was hailed not just as a sole superpower or a hyperpower, the global policeman, the only cop on the block which American leaders and people took that label seriously. Their bases multiplied and seems preparing to confront future wars against Muslim nation-states who happened to live on so many of the key oil lands on earth.

I have been to some of the U.S. bases in Japan like in Yokosuka and Kadena in Okinawa but the Pentagon's latest report according to Engelhardt have a total of 124 bases in Japan,38 in Okinawa and 87 in South Korea.

Overheard that the Israeli-Palestinian war in Gaza will lead to the installation of a new US base on Israeli territory at the Negev desert There are allegedly 194 countries, officially 39 of them have American 'facilities'. Some nations share their military camps with the US bases. After the Iraq-Iran war and the Iraq-Kuwait war, the US temporary bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia became permanent fixtures with both governments paying the US government to act like their "security guards" to protect them from terror groups.

The need for the US bases by wealthy nations neutralized the attempt of the Pentagon to close some of their bases due to budget constraints, possible job loss and lost income. Most of the US bases were relocated instead near or closer to the oil heartlands and seabeds to monitor the 'black gold' meaning offshore oil drilling.

It's quite amazing how Southern Philippines is being developed by USAID and the Pentagon from Palawan, Basilan, Gensan, Zamboanga, Sulu and now Tawi Tawi, building superior airstrips and modern pier.

Will the portable US bases in Minsupala (Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan) become permanent? I hope that the warlords,local politicians and media from Mindanao will not be tricked by the operators of ’hidden hands' so that the Southern Philippines will not be divided and get 'balkanized'....... Just thinking!

Police Training as Part of Balikatan?

Police Training as Part of Balikatan?

by Erick San Juan

When I read in the newspapers that our police forces will be trained by the U.S. military and law enforcement experts, it was at first glance a welcome move especially if it's "gratis et amore". But when my friend, Tony Abaya of the Manila Standard sent me an email entitled -The Pentagon is Muscling in Everywhere, It's Time To Stop the Mission by Thomas A. Schweigh, I recalled the old adage of warning--"Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts".

Schweigh's article seems credible and relevant. He served the Bush administration as Ambassador for Counter-Narcotics in Afghanistan and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement Affairs. He's a life long Republican and a son of a retired U.S. air force colonel.

He said that the U.S. no longer have a civilian-led government and its constitution is at risk. Schweigh explained that the most unnerving legacy of the Bush administration is the encroachment of the Department of Defense into a striking number of aspects of civilian government.

He added that incoming President Barack Obama's selections of James L. Jones, a retired four-star marine general to be his National Security Adviser and retired Navy admiral Dennis C. Blair to be his Director for National Intelligence allegedly present the Obama administration with an opportunity and a major risk. These appointments in his analysis could pave way for these respected military officers to reverse the current trend of Pentagon encroachment upon civilian government functions or they could possibly complete the silent military coup d’état that has been gaining ground in the radar screen of most Americans and media.

According to Schweigh, he witnessed the quiet de facto military takeover of much of the U.S. government while serving the U.S. State department in several senior capacities over the past four years. He commented that the first assault on civilian government occurred in far away places like Iraq and Afghanistan and in theory, justified by the exigencies of war.

The White House reportedly let the defense department to call the budgetary shots, vastly underfunded efforts by the State department, the Justice department and the U.S. Agency for Inernational Development to train civilian police forces, build functioning judicial systems and provide basic development services to those war-torn countries. He cited as an example how the Justice department and the State department after the 2003 invasion of Iraq that they needed at least 6,000 police trainers in the country.

Last year, the State department received an average of about $40 million a year for rule-of-law programs in Afghanistan in contrast to the billions that the Pentagon got to train the Afghan army. Under then Defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the DOD failed to provide even basic security for the meager force of civilian police mentors, advisers, and aid workers from other U.S. agencies operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, which drove policy makers to hire contracting firms like Blackwater Worldwide. After setting up the U.S. government to fail, military authorities then declared that the other agencies unsuccessful police training efforts required military leadership and took them over after brutal inter-agency battles at the White House.

When Afghanistan and Iraq were given the programs, both nations were unnecessarily militarized thus producing supposed to be law enforcers who look more "militia" members than ordinary beat cops, Schweigh added. Then, they become paramiltary groups, well armed with U.S. equipment ready to become "manchurian candidates".

Ronald Neumann, former U.S. ambassdor to Afghanistan who was removed in 2007 because of his "admirable" efforts to balance military and civilian needs had an early retirement when he said that "we are in a war after all". When the military takeover of civilian functions was leaked, he was suspected and was also blamed about the leak of classified informations to the media.

The same scenario could happen in the Philippines, especially now that the two perceived terrorist groups, namely, the NPA and the MILF have been very active and our law enforcement units seem helpless to address the insurgents. These groups if they will not stop bullying and provoking can be a good copy for such military and police exercises where they could be the guinea pigs.

On the issue of international drug operations, the controversial drug war in Mexico as written by Gemma Cruz Araneta of the Manila Bulletin last week could have a repeat here. Local drug cartels using their surrogates created so much noise that led to tip offs and buy bust operations. The Chinese Triad group versus the boys of the Indian drug financiers. Believe me, this could be a prelude for foreign governments with vested interests to intervene.

Protectorate anyone!!!

CHARTER CHANGE IN THE US

CHARTER CHANGE IN THE US

by Erick San Juan

Filipinos do not seem to own the monopoly of resistance to any attempt at amending their fundamental law. Even the Americans do. They - the political activists, at least - are generally furious about the idea of mangling their charter. In fact, it is a big deal for them, because they have not had this since 1787.

Just like in the Philippines, the Americans are upset about the talks to introduce innovation into their charter, to accommodate provisions that could formalize their status – or reputation – of being the world’s policeman endowed with an air of braggadocio being the biggest superpower.

Even the American Policy Center (APC) had to apologize profusely because it got caught with its pants down. It claims that “this malignancy most foul remained undetected by our radars until a good friend brought it to our attention” only last Wednesday. This triggered swift action!!!

A “snow-balling effect” is what they fear most.

One of the most important action alerts ever issued by the APC is one entitled: “Extremely urgent: US only two States Away from Constitutional Convention. Whether true or not, many of them fear that if the proposition for a Cha-Cha gets approved by the Ohio legislature, it would need only another State to pass a similar action and similar actions are expected to come after another. This could induce the US Congress to have no choice but to call for a convention, thus throwing their Charter up for grabs. To them, the threat posed by the vote in Ohio is grave enough to merit a call for immediate action – to call their respective congressmen.

To the APC, It does not matter where you live. Ohio's vote today endangers everyone in every state in the Union, so we must pressure Ohio lawmakers to discard this disastrous legislative effort thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST call for Convention.

Similar to the Philippines , the U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, “the United States will be only one state away from total destruction.” And it's a safe bet that those who hate America and all that she stands for, are merely waiting to pounce upon this chance to re-write the US charter.

Certainly all loyal Americans want government to have a balanced budget. But they believe that calling a Con Con is taking risks about facing some revolutionary changes in their form of government. They are almost sure that its ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution; one that would possibly eliminate the restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights. “So what may look like a good idea to the legislators driving this effort - all Republicans - will certainly make them prey to the law of unintended consequences - at the very least insuring the U.S. will never have a balanced budget - while destroying what vestiges of liberty the government still allows?”

While it may be true that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls but under Article V of the US Constitution, “Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever 2/3 (or 34) of the states apply.”

The US Charter has no provision on a state of rescission. Advocates of the convention are said to be waiting to capture just two more states - Ohio , and one other. Then, they may start challenging the other states' rescissions in the courts “while going ahead with the Convention.” Given this, Congress alone then decides whether state legislatures or state conventions ratify proposed amendments.

Certainly, like in the Philippines , the individual States in the USA can control the subject of any convention. Truth to tell, no restrictive language can limit the scope or outcome of a ConCon! Once a Convention is called, Congress’s role is only to determine how the delegates are chosen. Once chosen, those delegates acquire more powers than do Congress itself!

The Convention of 1787 was called to introduce minor revisions in the Articles of Confederation. That was the only ConCon Americans can remember. In fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates to discuss only, amendments to the Charter, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes.

After the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret however, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to nullify the Articles of Confederation. They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100% to 75%. We can’t see enough reason to believe that a contemporary Con Con wouldn't tamper with Article V restrictions to suit its purpose.

Quoting a letter former Chief Justice Warren Burger sent to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum he said that there is no sure-fire way to limit or, muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention, a sovereign body, has its own agenda. Congress may pass a law limiting to just one the articles to be amended, but the Convention can vote later to do as it pleases. It would be too late to stop the convention from doing what it likes.

Americans were blessed that the delegates to the1787 Con Con were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed the US of tyranny. Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society.

It would be such a crazy scheme to amend the US Charter at this time, because the US has just voted a dedicated progressive as its President and that the Republicans are seen at its weakest right now.

Whether in the US or the Philippines, if a ConCon is done now, can anybody guaranty that the debates can be controlled and that civil liberties will not be revised into a government-controlled privileges; replace the policy of collective right to self defense; abolish the Bill of Rights; include the non-existent principle of Separation of the Church and the State; population control, abortion and euthanasia and other issues.

Peoples’ unique concept of individual rights, endowed by God, would be quickly banish as an anachronistic relic of the past; replaced by new "collective" rights, awarded and enforced by government for the "common good". The problems our nation faces are not a result of deficiencies in our Constitution; rather, they are the direct result of our disregard for that Bill of Rights.

There is no challenge faced by this nation that cannot be solved by enforcing existing law.

With a Charter patterned after the US , we can safely say that mango trees never yield tomatoes! Think it over.

A TOTALITARIAN WORLD

A TOTALITARIAN WORLD

by Erick San Juan

Hints have been dropped that we can soon wake up one fine morning to find that the entire humanity is already under a system of governance that is based on some kind of autocratic if not entirely totalitarian principles. In fact, the Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, featured last Tuesday an editorial that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term “global governance” is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.

Throughout the 1990s, people who have been warning us about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty have been called by popular culture and the media as “right-wing lunatics for sounding the alarm bells.

Now their agenda has been unmasked. And these hawks are left with no more spears to shoot at people trying to put them under check.

An unexpected editorial written by the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled ‘And now for a world government’ spells out the plan for global government and the manner it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to avoid steering the so-called hornets’ nest.

“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman. By citing the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror” would most likely be the three major pretexts through which it is being introduced by advocates of globalism.

Sounding the alarm bells much louder than we had done before, Rachman writes that “global governance” could be introduced much sooner than many expect and that President-elect Barack Obama has already expressed his desire to achieve that goal, making reference to Obama’s circle of advisors which includes Strobe Talbott. It will be recalled that in 1992 Talbott stated that “in the next century, nations as we know, it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

In his editorial, Rachman then agrees that the more abstract term “global governance,” which is commonly used by David Rockefeller and other advocates of a single world government as a shroud to hide their real desire of establishing a centralized global government, is merely a ploy used to prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America ’s talk-radio heartland”.

But some learned European of what is really going on around them, says Rachman. He points to Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France , as one who argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as Attali is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. He believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

Rachman also outlined how an official world government would evolve, which would feature the creation of “a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force”.

He insisted that a “world government” would involve much more than just the co-operation between nations, but it would also be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws.

These globalists are likely to pattern their world government after the continental government for 27 nations which the European Union has set up as a model.

The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

Acknowledging that the path to global government will be “slow and painful,” Rachman concludes that everything is in place considering that for the first time since man learned to write on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to achieve a world government.”

Citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote, Rachman concedes that international governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

“In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters,” Rachman wrote.

So there you have it – to be able to achieve a world government, dictatorial measures will have to be employed because majority of the people are openly against losing their sovereignty says one of the world’s top newspapers.

In view of the admission by the world’s most influential newspapers on the pursuit of the globalists’ self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government as their real agenda, would the advocates of globalism and their propagandists still persist in labeling us as paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up? Wake up guys!!

MUMBAI: A CON GAME?

MUMBAI: A CON GAME?

by Erick San Juan

If the claim made by some Mumbai-based group of activists and intellectuals are true, then, it will require a very influential and determined world leader to show the way into nipping the security menace at it’s bud.

For sure, the cure to this world problem will depend so much upon the demeanor that President-elect Barrack Obama of the United States will display as soon as his watch begins. If Obama leans towards one way or the other, it will be towards that direction that the series of conflicts in various parts of the world will head to.

A move favoring the power elite, the compradors and their domestic subalterns is seen to aggravate the prevailing exploitative situation. This can ignite more protest actions – some may be violent.

On the other hand, favoring the less empowered and the working class could be taken by the king-makers as an affront upon them and could result in an assassination in a manner they had done to President Abraham Lincoln when he planted the seeds that eventually eradicated slavery in the US and to the late President John F. Kennedy, who exerted much efforts at reforming the banking industry of the US and its Federal Reserves. But if Obama behaves the way Pontius Pilate did during the public trial of Jesus Christ, the status quo will prevail and bloodshed could also escalate beyond what we all can imagine.

On December 4, 2008, the India Daily quoted the group of activists and intellectuals at a press conference in the business capital of Mumbai , India , that "there is enough evidence that the Al-Qaeda is a front organization of the CIA and MOSSAD. The Bush junta has used the bogey of terror and of Al Qaeda to justify his unending and ever expanding Global War on Terror, which is only a means of capturing the resources of the world and of establishing the sole hegemony of Israel in West Asia ." To the “birds of prey,” selling their war machines before and during any war and the ensuing post-war reconstruction phase are opportunities that they must be able to corner.

It is a well known fact that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq even after Saddam Hussein was ousted, tried and executed. The same is true with what was once Taliban-dominated Afghanistan whose people the world’s power elite “is punishing” for cuddling Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi intellectual whose undercover activities the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) used to bank-roll.

The propagandists of these syndicate of power-hungry "globalists" has repeatedly and consistently hammered on the necessity to hunt down and neutralize personalities who they refuse to acknowledge as their own operation accomplices of the 9/11 attack (on the WTC).

As a result, the spokesman of the Mumbai-based activists said that the exploiters’ propaganda has been widely written about in USA and Europe itself. In fact, more than 50% of the American people and far more Europeans now believe and are convinced about the lies they have been passing on.

In fact, sections of the ruling political and military elite of India have been lured into importing the same Bush-Olmert formula. "The increasing terror attacks only serve the cause of the Indian elite and divide the masses along communal lines. It is only the ordinary Indians who are the victims of terror either in temples, mosques, buses or trains," he said adding that practically no political leader suffers a similar fate, where the terrorists are apprehended and killed in cold-blood, that are passed off as “encounters.”

"Every terror attack is meant to push and drag the Indian masses further into the waiting arms of Uncle Sam and the Israeli Goliath. Every terror attack spreads further hatred for the adherents of Islam and weakens the Indian Muslim community," said the Indian intellectuals.

To the descendants of the "globalists", What sin have the people of the world done to the power elite that they have to be treated in this kind of a con game? Just asking?