Richard Welser

It appears ... and I say 'appears' to me because I am not well schooled in economics but have read many contemporary articles, that the US economic system is indeed dependent upon war. Of course, with peaking resources, geopolitical strategies of resource and economic control, desires for hegemony and perhaps the delusional belief in their own contrived 'islamofacsist' vs whatever meme, our rulers continue onward. Frankly, if the US demise would take a good portion of the elites along with it I'd.... but unfortunately, it probably will not. My suspicion is that it will simply solidify the two percent of elites at the top and the remaining bits of humanity at the bottom. Endlessly enslaved. Bio-chipped, surveilled electronically, molded into a complacent worker-bee class. The thousand-year Reich realized. Insofar as the 'elites' or whatever you might call them, appear determined to gain complete control (at the expense and death of the peons below), I cannot help but wish the same upon them. Looking back to the reign of terror, at least the portion involving the royalty... can't see that I have much sympathy for them. With respect to today's royalty... you know, the folks who 'make' wars. Who profit from wars. Who manage wars. I guess I'd have to say that I'd pull their ropes. If that makes me as bad as them... no, it would be impossible to be as bad as them... but if it led to a mass of bad karma.... I guess I'd have to say, c'est la guerre. I'll put my gloves on.

Probably no better example will be found as to why this discussion forum rapidly lost its appeal. No substance, simply demeaning in a churlish way. Surely you can do better, Evan. No matter though. No breath held. You are as you are.

Peter Stated: "Says it all....not just Kosovo, but the intentional destruction of a functioning alternative model to the Corporate Free-market-for-rich Capitalism of the USA in all of Yugoslavia. [We had to destroy them to bring them 'freedom'.] " Some wondering..... I wonder if anybody has a good listing of the resources available for plunder in Kosovo. So, in addition to the plundering of resources, the Straussian division and chaos model keeps rolling towards the east..... I wonder if mother Russia will intervene in some way at this choice point or bide her time for the really big confrontations waiting round the bend.... Everybody in the Central Asia' SCO and all the way to China, I would suppose, know what's what with the Empire. As an aside, I have also wondered just what weapons the Empire has that gives everybody apparent pause. The 'Triangle' things? Etc.

Some of this I had known (superficially) but Hudson's article is most enlightening and detailed just enough for my tired brain. Thanks for the link. m. p.s. Doesn't make one too proud of the good ole' US of A. I know, it's not actually 'us' but 'them' (the elites and their organizations) but we are responsible for what our government does in our names.... and right about now, every American has silently endorsed so much evil that no salvation is deserved.

I shall, of course, take your advice to heart. m.

Banks are a good way for the elites to make money. When I was a child banking was described to me something like this; you would have money in a bank account and they would pay interest on it. The bank got the money with which to pay you interest (and pay their operating expenses) from the persons whom they lent the money to and from which they charged a higher interest rate. Well, it came as something as a shock to me later to realize later that banks are allowed to make their own money, in effect, and to lend it out as loans. They are supposed to have a % of 'real money' in reserves in the bank but I'm not sure that anyone knows what is where anymore. They get 'real money' paid back to them though and they can foreclose on real homes etc. Under an interest payment system there is always a loser. It is built into the system. Just like musical chairs. Its not called a mortgage / death gamble for nothing. In other words, you might be saying that Banks are a scam..... (and my own view, the Federal Reserve, as a private institution, is a really huge scam....)

My guess is that they have hard assets mostly. Vast tracks of land, mansions and castles (yes), transnational industries/corporations etc. across the world. And they own banks. LOTS of BIG banks....... See Rockefeller below. A most important bank (and I am not sure by whom and or how it is owned (though I intend to research it) is the International Bank of Settlements.... Me, I got plenty of nothin' ... 'cept I owe my soul to the company store.... How's that for mixing songs.... ABOUT THE ROCKEFELLERS: ---- The Family That Preys Together Although international banking is probably the Rockefellers' most important business, Standard Oil remains the keystone in the arch of the Rockefeller Empire. The family is still better known to the public for its oil properties than for its bank shares. Petroleum is now the single most important commodity in world trade. lt supplies the fuel, of course, for almost every motor vehicle in the world, it powers most electric generating plants, and it is the most vital raw material for the manufacturing of plastics, chemicals and drugs. All of this has brought huge benefits to the Rockefellers. As Time magazine reported in its, issue of February 18, 1974: "For 111 years, the business that has been variously known as the Standard Oil Trust, Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey), Esso and now Exxon has survived wars, expropriations, brutalizing competition, muckraking attacks and even dismemberment by the US Supreme Court (in 1911). It has not only survived but has also grown-from a refinery in Cleveland to a global behemoth that sells petroleum in more than 100 countries through some 300 subsidiaries and affiliates that make up a -United Nations of oil." Not only grown but also prospered-so much so that last month it reported the largest annual profit ever earned by any industrial company: $2.4 billion after taxes. " The explosive growth of Exxon, the tiger of the oil industry, is revealed in the following UPI release fifteen months [May 1975] after the Time article: "Fortune magazine has just issued its list of the nation's 500 biggest corporations, and never in the 20 years that it has tracked their performance have the rankings been so changed. The reason, the May issue of the magazine reports, is oil. Fortune's new list of the biggest publicly held industrial corporations for 1974 introduces a new No. 1: the Exxon Corporation. lt displaced the General Motors Corporation, which had been America's biggest industrial company for 40 years. Exxon was No. 2 in 1973. Propelled by soaring prices for oil, Exxon's sales-the gauge by which Fortune determines size-surged from $25.7 billion in 1973 to $35.8 billion last year." To get some idea of the mammoth size of Exxon, consider the following: If Exxon were shorn of all its foreign operations, it would still be the ninth or tenth largest industry in the United States. Yet it gets only 16% of its oil production and 32% of its sales from this country. If Exxon merely transported oil, it would be the world's biggest shipping firm. lt has 155 tankers of its own and varying numbers under charter at sea. It is a substantial international banker, holding fortunes in marks, yen, francs, pounds and dollars all over the world. And on and on it goes. In order to determine actual Rockefeller family control over Exxon and the other offshoots of the original Standard Oil Trust (Mobil, Standard of Indiana, Standard of California, Chevron, Sohio, Phillips 66, Marathon, et al)we must gather all of the pieces of the puzzle we can find and carefully fit them together. In his testimony before Congress, Dilworth revealed that the Rockefeller family has approximately $324,600,000 worth of oil stock. This represents an average of about 2 % in each of the four giant oil companies. But,in 1966, testimony before the Patman Committee indicated that the nine Rockefeller family foundations also controlled an average of about 3 % in the Standard Oil Trust descendants. This known total of 5% would give the Rockefellers effective working control over the four giant corporations: In addition, there are shares held in trust by the Rockefeller banks, insurance companies, universities and other groups whose boards of directors and trustees are interlocked with the Rockefellers. And yet, incredibly, oil is not even the Rockefellers' biggest business. That honor is reserved for international banking. The Rockefeller family banks are the First National City Bank and the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Chase Manhattan is the third largest banking establishment in the world; and while only number three', it is by far the most influential. The largest bank in the world is Bank of America in California, inventor of the bank credit card, Bank Americard, which now has 39 million cardholders worldwide. Bank of America became a giant through branch banking in California, where it has over 1,000 offices. Until recently, however, when it linked is overseas operations with the Rothschilds of Europe, the Bank of America lacked international horsepower. Now it too has joined the internationalists' crusade for World Government. Chase Manhattan was created by the union of the Rockefeller-owned Chase Bank with the Kuhn, Loeb controlled Manhattan Bank. The marriage has been a huge success for both families; in 1971 Chase Manhattan claimed $36 billion in assets. This is impressive enough, but the New York Times has pointed out that it is not the whole story: ". . a major portion of their [Chase Manhattan's business carried on through affiliated banks overseas is not consolidated on the balance sheet." Time also emphasizes the immense power of the Chase Manhattan, noting that "The Chase has 28 foreign branches of its own, but more important, it has a globe encircling string of 50,000 correspondent banking offices."Fifty thousand correspondent banks around the world! if each correspondent bank were worth only a paltry $10 million, it would give Chase potential world wide clout of five hundred billion dollars ! Such a figure is simply incomprehensible. Unfortunately, it is probably a conservative estimate of Chase's power and influence. Such financial clout would give the Rockefellers the ability to create an international monetary crisis over, night. Could it be that it is they who have been yo-yoing the price of gold, dollars and foreign currencies during the past few years-creating panics for most investors, but profits for themselves? Every time an international monetary storm blows up hundreds of millions of dollars flow into European banks. When the storm subsides, those who were 'in the know' at the beginning have made enormous sums of money, That the Rockefellers have been very profitably involved through the Chase Manhattan Bank and its overseas facilities, seems more than reasonable. By almost any standard, Chase Manhattan has become virtually a sovereign state. Except it has more money, than most. lt even employs a full-time envoy to the United Nations. ........... article continues (many more things they own) at http://educate-yourself.org/ga/RF3chap1976.shtml

Peter, never got a chance to thank you for your support on the other thread. Gotta question. To what degree do you think this fiasco has been engineered, if at all? Couple this with the ongoing collapse in the greenback. And peaking oil resources, etc. Is this the 'calamity' .... with riotous, hungry folks that might serve as the excuse for martial law (perhaps under the next pres), and the implementation of the NAU? I've got my 'conspiracy antennae' on..... You probably know this stuff better than I. (not the conspiracy stuff necessarily but the economic 'stuff')

Charles, Rather than repost all of the discussion I thought I would reply more succinctly. You were generous in you comments and provided insight to me. We are very closely in agreement. Having read about multiple objectives as such in Tarpley's book (even though I have some other difficulties with him, he has done some really good work) I should have remembered. Thanks for 'remembering' for me. I fully concur that the straw man argument may - also - be (in an expanded version, encompassing many many events) in effect ( and who knows what circles in circles exist). I do not have data to argue that it does not. I think my disagreement ... and it really should not be called that, I suppose. is one of emphasis. I do not think the straw man issue plays as big a role. But I could be wrong inasmuch as I have not considered that issue much. So I will. But I do know about Bernays, Dulles, Operation Mockingbird, MKUltra, and the Pentagon's 'Operation Information Roadmap' and in my cynicism believe that there are very elaborate psyops, cointelpro, disinfo and misinfo permeating the net and the world. 911 was a wake-up call for me in that respect. To imagine that straw men, as such, and many other strategies of deception, are occurring is certainly not outside being considered.... as stated, "No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.". William Blum I also know that there are some who seem to express bravado in their resistance to (whatever) but that is their defense against a grinding sense of impotence. Most I know, though, do not feel like much of a threat to anything. I detect in them .... and in me, I'm afraid, a sense of hopelessness that we (I) nevertheless rail against. So, like I said, mostly a matter of emphasis I'm responding sort of randomly ... you said, There are indeed forces at work that desire calamity for calamity's sake. But perhaps that area of inquiry is simultaneously too far afield and too close to the truth for this Internet venue. That is a great area of speculation. Really fun. If I am interpreting what you said correctly. Rigorous Intuition is a great site for such as well as some really 'rigorous' discussion. I recommend it. Even though like anyplace it has its ups and down.. Check out their "dump" or archive of source information etc. On all kinds of things. The next response... "I believe, further, that there is no necessary reason to abandon the nation state, per se. Given the current options apparently embodied in the elites’ view of the ‘new world order’, (see statements made by David and Nick Rockefeller, for examples) I think I’ll support some arrangement a little less ‘unified’…… if you don’t mind. I’m just a little wary of the folks who appear to be running that show." Might there be a third alternative? I think this is really a most important question. I feel remiss because I began David Griffin's discussion on a better form of world organization in '9/11 and American Empire' and thought he was describing what might work and still respect folks' independence (and nations). But then I got distracted (adult ADD) and started reading somebody else.... Ilam Pappe, I think. And then, believe it or not, my black Lab ate the book when I left it within her reach.... at least a good portion of it. She also 'ate' several medicare payments sent to my front door mail slot when this was my address for them then...... :-) But anyway, I think your question would be a great topic for a thread. Really constructive. At least feeling like we're doing something productive.... rather than simply documenting the slide into fascism. So, anyway, I've really enjoyed our discussion. Thanks. btw, another great quote is: "The name of the game is "Find Your Adversary". Your adversary's game plan is to convince you that he does not exist." -William S. Burroughs --maybe they are beginning to lose on this one ??

Dear Charles, just some of my meandering thoughts.…. In your comments (I tried to recapture the red) you stated: And I'm one of those full-blown wack-a-loons who shares your belief, but who also understands that those who would "remove active dissent from the American scene" are not controllers, but rather their pawns among the controlled. There's too much at stake to alter a system that is working so very, very well. I have to question what appears to be your basic presupposition. What are you regarding as the “system” and what about it is “working so very, very well”? (.……….) I submit that the goal here is to reinforce false senses of functioning democracy and, for lack of a more ready term, people power by setting up "straw men" -- hate laws, detention centers, etc. and those pawns who promote them -- that will fall before the onslaught of "free men" who in fact are anything but. I think I agree with the first part of the goal you are describing here; that is, that there have been efforts to “reinforce false senses of functioning of democracy”. I admit I make the assumption (not unfounded, actually) that the ‘overlords’ (heavens, what can I call that group who are the puppeteers?) via the CIA, et. al. (as one group already acknowledged to have done this in the past and presumably still doing it) control and manipulate the media in this nation. And it is the media who help bolster and reinforce the false belief that democratic processes still have a role in the running of this place. They reinforce what Heinberg (probably not original with him) has called the ‘consensus trance’. Also, democratic processes at the local level do appear to work somewhat and further support the illusion that democracy extends up into the national level. Which it does not. I do not believe ‘hate laws and detention centers’ are straw men. To think that they are would require one to believe that they are irrelevant and unnecessary from the puppeteer’s point of view. Since my underlying assumption is that one goal, at least, entails a draconian restructuring of society and diminution of individual freedom, the existence of camps and thought control laws (so called) easily fit into that agenda. Some other factors also seem to be relevant here as well. I’ll simply list some without elaboration. Peaking resources is one (that governments have been well aware of for a long while now and which, many believe is the major factor underlying current geopolitical turmoil), global warming (pro/con) is another. The overpopulation of the planet another. The looming end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is a huge factor as is the exodus of manufacturing from the U.S. (not an accident, I believe), the astounding debt of the U.S., potential collapse of the U.S. economy, creation of the NAU, destruction of the middle class, problems with global food production, the desires among elements of our country to maintain and enhance global hegemony, the threats of pandemics … and the list goes on. Mass starvation and population die off are thought by some (see Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels) to be almost a certainty as oil/natural gas-based fertilizers, oil-based pesticides and the production of and use of machinery (takes oil to make ‘em and oil to run ‘em) become less available (if the peak oil folks are correct). There are no substitutes for oil and natural gas in these processes. A hectare of land with all that stuff can support, say 40 persons. Without it, only 10. A dire set of circumstances for the world population if folks like Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, Pfeiffer and others are correct.…. - a 4 - to - 5 billion die off? Turmoil at home is also likely to occur if further war is waged in the middle east and central asia.… Bombing Iran (which appears to have never left the table), confrontations with Russia, China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are also looming. NATO’s attempt to secure the mineral resources of Kosovo for the industrial and financial interests of the west and the continuing efforts to control the Caspian Sea Basin’s petroleum and natural gas reserves … and all the other resources in Central Asia certainly raise the specter of more ‘endless’ war. How would Americans react? Agreed that the law of unintended consequences must be taken into account. So too must we acknowledge that novel threats to the controllers posed by global communications technologies (Internet, etc.) must be dealt with in novel fashions. The internet is a fragile bulwark at best. See Mike Whitney’s article regarding the Pentagon’s ‘Operation Information Roadmap’ based on information obtained by the BBC's FOIA request to get a glimpse what is currently happening and more that certainly could occur at the whim of the militarists in Washington. It may be that enough folks will become aware to alter things. Maybe 911 truth (for example) and the increasing awareness of factors (and others) as noted above will help provide resistance to the hegemonists.… but that may well be wishful thinking. My dark suspicion is that the folks moving the agenda we see evolving have thought long and hard as they strategize - they’ve had many many years to plan - they aren’t dummies I would guess - .… and the rest of us are woefully behind the curve. We shall see. But in the final analysis this is all about maintining power and profits, and I have yet to read your explanation of how martial law possibly could enhance the current, long-standing, only marginally threatened ultra-profitable status quo. I believe the “marginally threatened ultra-profitable status quo” is not necessarily American-based. And those who are will probably survive quite nicely in the gated bastions. But the money, the resources, the power is transnational. The myth is that of believing martial law would be implemented to enhance the power of the elites. Rather, it may well be enacted simply to protect the power of the elites. As America goes through transformations required by the economic, political, resource-based and natural forces noted above. Just my opinions here, but my personal belief is that we serfs are headed for some very very grim times. And the controllers' control exists. So where's the need for drastic, self-threatening change? Could you explain this a bit more and perhaps flesh out the definition of ‘controller’ control’. One of the purposes of creating what I've judged to be straw men threats is to inflate our egos -- to make us think that we pose serious threats to the controllers. I did not agree with the ‘straw man’ hypothesis you presented initially, thus I don’t agree with the derivative; i.e., that these things exist to inflate our egos. I think some folks may like to imagine they are threats but that is just bravado. Even Alex Jones (here, now I have referred to him) who you might think would exemplify that, more frequently seems to border on a variant of despair. Show me how we've threatened them to date? Show me how we will threaten them in the near-term. Long-term. Ever. I have attempted (in my sleepiness) to argue, the forces moving the world towards calamity have little to do with ‘how we have threatened them’ per se. Some motives appear to have to do with how ‘they’ want the world to be. (see Georgia’s Stonehenge and the writings thereon as one example …. but there are many many other examples.… many much more hideous) Until and unless we are prepared to abandon the patriotic impulse and embrace the truth that tribalism is the problem and not the solution, the controllers will continue to control. As I noted above, it is not that ‘we’ are a significant or substantial threat. But ‘useless eaters’ are, well, useless. And by definition unwanted and unnecessary. We use too many resources. ‘Uselessly’. And to the degree that we do not go along with the program... an irritant mainly, but the hungrier we get.… potentially dangerous. I believe, further, that there is no necessary reason to abandon the nation state, per se. Given the current options apparently embodied in the elites’ view of the ‘new world order’, (see statements made by David and Nick Rockefeller, for examples) I think I’ll support some arrangement a little less ‘unified’…… if you don’t mind. I’m just a little wary of the folks who appear to be running that show. ------------------- [as an aside, you may wish to read, Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business By Matthew Rothschild, February 7, 2008 in which the following is stated: Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law. and.…. “Then they said when—not if—martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says. I was able to confirm that the meeting took place where he said it had, and that the FBI and Homeland Security did make presentations there. One InfraGard member who attended that meeting denies that the subject of lethal force came up. But the whistle blower is 100 percent certain of it. “I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and everything to lose,” he adds. “I’m so nervous about this, and I’m not someone who gets nervous.” google the article for the entire article....

-------------- Charles, I couldn't help reading your comments before turning to work. Thank you so much for your thoughtful questions. Very good food for thought. I think I may have possible answers for a couple of them but I can't respond tonight. (work work work). I'll try to respond tomorrow. (btw, if Naomi Wolfe were unmarried and if I were a younger, richer, smarter man..... oh well - none of those am I.)

Maggie, thank you for the clarification you provided in your post. Len, next time you wish to points I may make please try to avoid the fallacies in argumentation as noted below. From the 25 Rules of Disinformation: http://members.aol.com/richrwg/truthno.htm 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. In #5 this is kind of guilting by (false) association embodied in your bringing up Alex Jones. You appear to have specifically made the effort to ridicule him (and by implied false association, me). And I did read your post carefully. Although you did not specifically state that I referred to Alex Jones site, by going on and on about him you, in effect paint with a broad brush any who you feel reference a subject that leads back to him. I also have a problem with ad hominem(s) in the 'broad brush' ... (though, in honesty I’ve been guilty of them in the past in anger - and, I admit as well, that it's awfully hard not to use them when referring to members of the PTB.) However, it is always better to avoid their use. Ad hominem(s) you used include “conspiracy mongering sites”, “gaggle of Chicken Littles”, “Sheeple”, “lunatics”. Next time, perhaps, a less antagonistic method of calling attention to a doubtful source would be simply to state that it is, from your point of view, a doubtful source and why. That way, you provide me with the opportunity to study it and reply one way or the other. I try to be honest in my discussions/argumentation/opinions and follow that same principle when I respond to others. Finally, because you utilized #4 (above) you avoided discussing or commenting on the other 98% or so of my comment. That’s ok I suppose but it means that there is very little else to respond to in your piece. It is always a pleasure to be welcomed thusly into a new forum. Actually, everybody else has been very cordial and I appreciate that. Richard If I have made errors here, I apologize. I wrote this hastily as I have loads of work to do tonight.

I do not disagree when some point out that the catalyst (traditionally) for martial law is some version of active rebellious, aggressive behavior by some group or other, or a more generally chaotic disruptive situation (the events generally surrounding the events at KSU). What we have been experiencing is, and it's been stated elsewhere by better than me, is a creeping fascism and progressively greater social control following the pattern of 30's Germany and other rises of dictatorship.... Naomi Wolfe speaks about this pattern very eloquently - watch her on YouTube. The concern many have about the implementation of martial law resolves from events believed to reflect a coherent evolution and pattern that both reflects increased statism and that provide the framework for effective implementation of martial law legally and logistically. As noted by others, the actual event of martial law (however one might define that moment) could happen as a result of the events Peter discussed. I'm one of those wackos who believes there are folks in existence who plan to remove active dissent from the American scene. And they encompass both republicans and democrats. Among many other heinous examples, the notorious 'thought crimes bill' in the senate is surely a harbinger. Also, why else build the camps?........ Rather an ominous development. Roosevelt once stated, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." IF you expand the definition of 'politics' a bit, it is not so hard to recognize that the events that have been transpiring since before 9/11, including it and all that has subsequently followed, have hardly been 'accidental'. It is true that the 'elites' would prefer a continuation of the imperceptible (by the mass of folks) accomplishment of de facto martial law over time. Problem is that events also move of their own accord, the 'unexpected consequences' thing, and acts may be performed that catalyze the populace (or portions of) to more actively resist. (the attack on Iran - still progressing in planning and geopolitical movement - possibly imminent confrontation with Russia over Kosovo.... also the nuclear weapons to be installed and aimed at Russia from Poland and CZ .... I know, I know.... they are 'defensive' missil systems against rockets from Iran... yep. Anyway, I'm sure that with imagination more scenarios could be imagined such as the utter collapse of the economy with resultant extreme turmoil and dissent. And this would as likely be ushered in by a dem or a republican president. Actually this last, is the vehicle I currently deem more likely. But who knows? The camps exists, the laws drastically reducing ... no, eliminating Constitutional rights exists, the psychological operation of 9/11 exists, hegemonic war exists, torture, tragically exists, control of the vast bulk of media exists (very important from Bernays-ian and CIA Mockingbird-ish perspectives) and the list goes on and on. So, regarding the issue of whether or not an actual definable implementation of martial law occurs, with, I suppose, Blackwater goons in the streets, the immediate control on freedoms etc. .... well, that's already happening insidiously. Blackwater trains members of police departments all over the country (e.g., my personal weapons course was taught by a county detective who received some of his training at Blackwater in NC) and Blackwater troops are increasingly being utilized at airports and elsewhere. The police departments have become more like military establishments - at least in the sense of the power/force they can now project as well as their 'misbehaviors' being recorded across the country. Even the august Homeland Security (I think Hitler used that term along with 'Fatherland') has employed fairly high level experts (and authoritarians, I presume) from the Stasi and from the KGB .... 'advise and consult' I always say.... ["Why would Homeland Security hire former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov" from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm ] In any case, the argument has many many pieces. These are but a few.

"As for Martial Law in USA, I don't think so. It isn't necessary. But it fhat's what they want, Bring It On. Pardon my interusion too, but I have a question for Richard Wesler. What's a forensic psychologist? Thanks, Bill Kelly Forensic psychology defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_psychology Bill, don't quite understand your apparent trivialization of the prospect of Martial Law..though it would awake the sleeping Public...a bit too late, I fear.....it would set in motion a rapid devolution of the whole society and polity and would be ugly and might not be at all temporary. Those of us on the progressive side of things and apt to resist - no matter how 'politely' are going to be those who suffer most and get put in camps first. See 'ya there! Peter, I'm not trivializing ML, I'm saying it is unlikely to be instituted in USA no matter what happens, mainly being uninforceable, as the military are busy elsewhere, and it would radicalize too many other Peter Lemkins. I can look up the defination myself; I wanted to hear from Richard Welser, who has forensic psycho on his resume. BK" -------------- I think the Wiki description is good. Rather than repeat what it says better than I could with limited time I will list the areas in which I serve that function. Evaluations of capacity to stand trial, participation in multidisciplinary evaluations of competency/need for guardianship, child custody evaluations, psychological evals for parents and children involved with the department of social services (child abuse, neglect, potential for abuse etc.) and neuropsychological evaluations addressing the sequelae of various cerebral insults (vascular disease, closed head trauma/TBI, effects of exposure to purported toxins, anoxia and the like. - all factors affecting cognitive function (this last is actually more frequently done in a non-forensic context) - though anytime you do anything, it can land up in court. I also deal with many of the issues/concerns of a general clinical psychologist, for example, a large part of my practice involves psychoeducational assessments for children (and some adults) and I see many folks in the therapeutic context - many children and families as well as individual adults. I do not 'do' marital therapy, however....... have to admit my limitations (regarding that, for example, and other specific subdomains.... I have many limitations ).... for example, and as an aside, I did 'do' marital therapy at one time but found I was mostly mediocre at it. Plus, it was particularly frustrating inasmuch as many relationships seemed to be pretty well trashed by the time things got so bad that a couple sought that help.... ---------- Regarding martial law and troops...... The new Praetorian Guard was created in my home state in the US. Guess which that is.... Guess also how easily (and happily, I bet) those 'troops' will shoot you on the street. 'They' have a track record elsewhere....

Yes, Ron this is the 'nightmare of nightmare' scenario! The camps are being built. The laws all in place and tested on 9/11 and after more laws and more laws......I have repeatedly warned about this on this Forum and to anyone who will listen..but most in America and without say 'it can't happen here/there'. I'm afraid they are very wrong and Franks has it correct...it is only a matter of time - unless the American sheeple wake-up and ACT...fast and with effect! All evidence IMO shows that is where those in power want to head and are headed. I do not know if the military would allow or not...it might split on that and the formation of Blackwater and other private military assets may be a kind of back-up, along with special forces, to force any who might try to stage a pro-Contitutional 'mutany' when the order is given. It will be ugly any which way. It can happen here. The Chileans thought it couldn't happen there. The Kenyan's though it couldn't happen there. New Yorkers and most in USA thought 9/11 couldn't happen self-infllicted.....the next big one is going to be very, VERY ugly indeed!.... it all started to tilt in the 'wrong direction' IMO on 11/22/63. Pardon the intrusion. Am a new person on the forum. Of course you are correct. We are 'poised'......