10.05.2008

congress was threatened with martial law if bailout wasn't passed

Congressman Brad Sherman from California has revealed that some Congresspeople were told that if they voted against the bailout, martial law would be declared in the US.



Watch the video. Then put it in in context.
Remember that, for years, Congress has operated under "martial law" provisions which force Congress members to vote on legislation without having time to adequately read and review it.

Remember also that the U.S. has been in a declared state of national emergency for 7 years, and normal constitutional provisions were probably long ago superseded.

As University of California Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott has warned:

"The systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.

To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating [Congress' requests], then [the declared state of emergency] has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority."

And remember that U.S. troops are being stationed inside the U.S. to suppress "civil unrest". [See original for linkage.]

Put this in context of many of the themes of this blog, especially election fraud and the movement towards fascism. Then remember what Naomi Klein says about becoming "shock resistant".

Put it in context of this old post.

How many more of these signs will people explain away, as they wear their Obama buttons and act like an election will fix the problem?

How much more blatant does it have to get?

13 comments:

redsock said...

I'm sure I have linked to a quotation from Milton Mayer's "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45":

***

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. ...

This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. ...

To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it — please try to believe me — unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. ...

***

I was astounded when I read that for the first time several years ago. Now, quite frankly, it scares the shit out of me.

Read it all.

L-girl said...

Sometimes I think, well of course most people don't believe this is happening. It's too awful to consider.

thefinalhalo said...

For people like me, who are still pretty young and limited in resources, what else can we do besides point out these injustices, try and get people aware of the larger problems, and vote for some kind of hope?

You're right that the GOP won't give up power easily, and I know that you have no faith in this election, but I still have to try and believe that there is some good left in this process; that there are enough honest people left in this government to try and prevent things like this the best that they can.

What else is there to do?

L-girl said...

Thefinalhalo, that's a very good question, and a very troubling one. I'm not saying there is any one thing any of us could be doing. However, I feel it is pointless and beyond naive to think that a normal election will change anything.

You're right that the GOP won't give up power easily,

We are misunderstanding each other.

I'm not talking about the GOP vs the Democrats. The people doing this are not "the Republicans". The people who have seized power in the US are a much smaller and more powerful group than that.

but I still have to try and believe that there is some good left in this process;

Then there's your answer. You feel you "have to try and believe". I don't know why you have to do that, but you feel you must, so there you are.

I would rather see you and millions like you give up on the election, refuse to participate in it, and instead take to the streets, to the airwaves, to the internet, denouncing the fraud, denouncing the complicity, in numbers so massive they could not be ignored.

Of course this will not happen.

But believing the system still works and dutifully reporting to your polling station is, in my opinion, a capitulation of sorts, and futile.

that there are enough honest people left in this government to try and prevent things like this the best that they can.

You're trusting people in this government to stop it?

L-girl said...

Thfinalhalo, I didn't mean that comment as against you in particular, like you specifically are somehow to blame or at fault. I don't mean I know you won't do this. I mean that no one will, it won't happen.

I apologize if it seemed like I was snapping at you. It's my sadness and anger at the whole situation coming out.

redsock said...

L wondered if I had anything to add. I really don't.

Honestly, the first thing that popped into my head was "be nice to those around you and try to live a good life". Kind of like making a dying person comfortable in their last days/hours.

that there are enough honest people left in this government to try and prevent things like this the best that they can

I don't mean to put you on the spot, but who the hell are these honest people? No one -- and I mean, not one frigging representative -- is out there every day (or even every week) sounding the alarm on all this shit. Even the ones who consistently vote against Bush have been far too silent on the destruction of the country.

Hell, 10% of the blatantly illegal shit Bush/Cheney have done is enough to convict them of treason. But most Democrats (by their votes or by their silence) are as complicit as the worst Republicans.

The house is rotting and about to crumble, and putting a prettier welcome mat on the stoop isn't going to save it.

L-girl said...

Honestly, the first thing that popped into my head was "be nice to those around you and try to live a good life".

I wrote this earlier, then deleted it, but perhaps the best thing we can do is keep Canada a place of freedom and refuge.

impudent strumpet said...

Even if for some reason the idea of martial law doesn't bother people, they should at least be pissed off that (depending on how you interpret the situation) either a) the gov't on-paper money not being in quite the right place is reason enough to call martial law, or b) they can't come up with a better excuse for martial law than on-paper money not being in quite the right place.

A competent government should be able to handle a problem that is not a physical threat without resorting to martial law, and a competent conspiracy should be able to come up with a physical threat to justify martial law.

L-girl said...

I guess for a long time I've assumed it's going to get worse - much, much worse - before it gets better.

L-girl said...

Even if for some reason the idea of martial law doesn't bother people,

Amazingly, this is a very real if.

A competent government should be able to handle a problem that is not a physical threat without resorting to martial law,

Indeed.

and a competent conspiracy should be able to come up with a physical threat to justify martial law.

But how could a country as rich and mighty as the US have a serious physical threat?

Through terrorism, of course.

But they've already used that one, and are now supposed to be protecting everyone from more.

On the other hand, it doesn't have to be a very big excuse for martial law. It could be a very small thing, blown up out of all proportion.

Canada Calling said...

What other reason could the U.S. government use to enact martial law? Perhaps something like global economic failure? We are already being primed for that.

These are today's CNN headlines;

World markets fall as financial crisis deepens

U.S. bank failures expected to rise

Dow Jones drops below 10,000 for first time in four years

Russia's stock markets suspended twice as shares go into free fall

Asia-Pacific financial markets close lower in Monday trading

Major European markets fall sharply in early trading Monday

MSS said...

One might wonder, then, why they voted it down. And why the revised bill that passed did so only after the usual pork-barrel and other non-germane amendments were tacked on.

But to say the system worked as it always does--which is not to say well or for the people--rather than under some threat of martial law (which Sherman himself says was unjustified fear-mongering, implying it was not a real threat) would be so much less exciting, wouldn't it?

L-girl said...

MSS, I don't post things like this for excitement. I post it because it's meaningful to me.

It's easy enough to explain away any isolated bit of information. But rather than continually explaining things away, I prefer to try to see the whole, to the extent that I can. Each piece is not too damaging. Taken together, it's a different picture.