HIP HOP LIFESTYLE

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Orleans: A Green Genocide

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Orleans: A Green Genocide

    New Orleans: A Green Genocide
    By Michael Tremoglie
    September 8, 2005

    As radical environmentalists continue to blame the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation on President Bush’s ecological policies, a mainstream Louisiana media outlet inadvertently disclosed a shocking fact: Environmentalist activists were responsible for spiking a plan that may have saved New Orleans. Decades ago, the Green Left – pursuing its agenda of valuing wetlands and topographical “diversity” over human life – sued to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from building floodgates that would have prevented significant flooding that resulted from Hurricane Katrina.

    In the 1970s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project planned to build fortifications at two strategic locations, which would keep massive storms on the Gulf of Mexico from causing Lake Pontchartrain to flood the city. An article in the May 28, 2005, New Orleans Times-Picayune stated, “Under the original plan, floodgate-type structures would have been built at the Rigolets and Chef Menteur passes to block storm surges from moving from the Gulf into Lake Pontchartrain.”

    “The floodgates would have blocked the flow of water from the Gulf of Mexico, through Lake Borgne, through the Rigolets [and Chef Mentuer] into Lake Pontchartrain,” declared Professor Gregory Stone, the James P. Morgan Distinguished Professor and Director of the Coastal Studies Institute of Louisiana State University. “This would likely have reduced storm surge coming from the Gulf and into the Lake Pontchartrain,” Professor Stone told Michael P. Tremoglie during an interview on September 6. The professor concluded, “[T]hese floodgates would have alleviated the flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina.”

    The New Orleans Army Corps of Engineers and Professor Stone were not the only people cognizant of the consequences that could and did result because of the environmental activists. While speaking with Sean Hannity on his radio show on Labor Day, former Louisiana Congressman and Speaker of the House Bob Livingston also referred to environmentalists whose litigation prevented hurricane prevention projects.

    In other words, unlike other programs – including the ones leftists like Sid Blumenthal excoriated the president for not funding – these constructions might have prevented the loss of life experienced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

    Why was this project aborted? As the Times-Picayune wrote, “Those plans were abandoned after environmental advocates successfully sued to stop the projects as too damaging to the wetlands and the lake's eco-system.” (Emphasis added.) Specifically, in 1977, a state environmentalist group known as Save Our Wetlands (SOWL) sued to have it stopped. SOWL stated the proposed Rigolets and Chef Menteur floodgates of the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Prevention Project would have a negative effect on the area surrounding Lake Pontchartrain. Further, SOWL’s recollection of this case demonstrates they considered this move the first step in a perfidious design to drain Lake Pontchartrain entirely and open the area to dreaded capitalist investment.

    On December 30, 1977, U.S. District Judge Charles Schwartz Jr. issued an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake Pontchartrain hurricane protection project, demanding the engineers draw up a second environmental impact statement, three years after the corps submitted the first one. In one of the most ironic pronouncements of all time, Judge Schwartz wrote, “it is the opinion of the Court that plaintiffs herein have demonstrated that they, and in fact all persons in this area, will be irreparably harmed if the barrier project based upon the August, 1974 FEIS [federal environmental impact statement] is allowed to continue.”

    If the Greens prevailed, it was not because the forces of common sense did not make a compelling case. SOWL’s account reveals that during the course of the trial the defense counsel, Gerald Gallinghouse – a Republican U.S. Attorney who acted as a special prosecutor during the Carter administration – felt so strongly that the project should continue that he told the judge he would “go before the United States Congress with [Democratic Louisiana Congressman] F. Edward Hebert to pass a resolution, exempting the Hurricane Barrier Project from the rules and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act because, in his opinion, [this plan] is necessary to protect the citizens of New Orleans from a hurricane.” Despite this, the judge ruled in favor of the environmentalists. Ultimately, the project was aborted in favor of building up existing levees.

    However, the old plan lived on in the minds of those who put human beings first. The Army Corps of Engineers as recently as last year had publicly discussed resuming the practice. The September-October 2004 edition of Riverside (the magazine of the New Orleans District Army Corps of Engineers Public Affairs Office) referred to this lawsuit and project. Eric Lincoln’s article titled, “Old Plans Revived for Category 5 Hurricane Protection,” stated:

    In 1977, plans for hurricane protection structures at the Rigolets and Chef Menteur Pass were sunk when environmental groups sued the district. They believed that the environmental impact statement did not adequately address several potential problems, including impacts on Lake Pontchartrain’s ecosystem and damage to wetlands.

    Ultimately, an agreement between the parties resulted in a consent decree to forego the structures at the Rigolets and Chef Menteur Pass…The new initial feasibility study will look at protecting the area between the Pearl River and Mississippi River from a Category 5 storm…. (Emphasis added.)

    The article added, “[A]lternatives that would be studied in the initial feasibility report are: Construction of floodgate structures, with environmental modifications, at Rigolets and Chef Pass.” (Emphasis added.) The Times-Picayune recorded last May, “the corps wants to take another look [at building the floodgates] using more environmentally sensitive construction than was previously available.” This time the Army Corps of Engineers would modify the original plans because of the environmentalists. However, the project was already delayed more than two decades because of the environmentalists’ lawsuit. If begun immediately it would take another two decades to complete: a 40-year delay caused by the Green Left.

    Planning for a category five hurricane was, indeed, visionary thinking. Few people believed such a storm would take place more often than once every few centuries, and no one had the political will to fight for the funding such a project would necessitate. However, scientists had long warned about New Orleans’ vulnerability to the potential for massive loss of life caused by such things as the environmentalists’ lawsuit. A National Geographic article, written after a smaller hurricane last year, captured the sentiments of one such expert:

    “The killer for Louisiana is a Category Three storm at 72 hours before landfall that becomes a Category Four at 48 hours and a Category Five at 24 hours – coming from the worst direction,” says Joe Suhayda, a retired coastal engineer at Louisiana State University who has spent 30 years studying the coast…“I don’t think people realize how precarious we are.”

    As it turned out, this is exactly how events played out during the next hurricane, one year later. USA Today noted, the levees the government had constructed were no match for the vortex of this force of nature. Soon Katrina pushed inland:

    Hurricane Katrina pushed Lake Pontchartrain over the flood walls...The spilling water then undermined the walls, and they toppled…Lake Pontchartrain, a body half the size of Rhode Island, was losing about a foot of water every 10 hours into New Orleans.

    The rushing lake soon overwhelmed the city’s pumps. The ever-rising water soon mixed with sewage, creating a toxic liquid mixture that burned the skin on contact. When the flood levels grounded the city buses Mayor Ray Nagin never deployed, it denied thousands of New Orleans’ poorest and feeblest an escape.

    Despite the mayor’s apparent incompetence, these floodgates environmental activists sued to prevent from being constructed may have kept a flood from consuming the city to the extent it did in the first place. The current programs aimed at reinforcing existing levees but would only prove effective against a level three hurricane; they were not adequate for a level five storm like Katrina. Moreover, they did not fortify the specific areas the government sought to protect, to keep Lake Pontchartrain from flooding the entire city, which everyone knew posed a danger to a city below sea level. In other words, this plan would have saved thousands of lives and kept one of the nation’s greatest cities from lying in ruins for a decade.

    At a minimum, such a plan would have staved off a significant portion of the disaster that’s unfolded before our eyes.

    Worse yet, the environmentalists’ ultimate decision to reinforce existing levees may have actually further harmed the Big Easy. There is at least one expert who claims the New Orleans levees made no difference – in fact, they contributed to the problem. Deputy Director of the LSU Hurricane Center and Director of the Center for the Study Public Health Impacts by Hurricanes Ivor van Heerden said, “The levees ‘have literally starved our wetlands to death’ by directing all of that precious silt out into the Gulf of Mexico.”

    Thirty years after its legal action, Save Our Wetlands boasts, “SOWL's legacy lives on and on within the heart and spirit of every man, woman, child, bird, red fish, speckle trout, croakers, etc.”

    Despite its pious rhetoric, the environmental Left’s true legacy will be on display in New Orleans for years to come.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the soon-to-be-released novel A Sense of Duty, and an ex-Philadelphia cop. E-mail him at [email protected]
    .
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260).

  • #2
    So let me get this straight. The government warned EVERYBODY to get out. The government wanted to prevent a flood from occuring by building new protection systems. Both times, people ignored the government and engineers. They insisted on standing ground and protecting fish. Then, they bitch at the government during the aftermath.

    Unreal.

    Great article. This actually WOULD have prevented the disaster that occurred if it went through. Looks like local officials and environmentalists wanted to preserve salt water fish over a metropolitan city and millions of people.
    Warpox exposes himself | Editorial 1 4 | 2Pox

    Comment


    • #3
      Finally, the truth is STARTING to come out:

      http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle10182.htm

      The Siege of New Orleans

      "We have been abandoned by our own country.Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area, and bureaucracy has to stand trial." Aaron Broussard

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". George Orwell

      by Mike Whitney

      09/08/05 "ICH" -- -- Neither the Mainstream media nor the alternative-Leftist web sites have told the true story of what really happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. For the people of the region it was the greatest natural catastrophe they'd ever faced. For the Bush administration it was just another opportunity to use fear and anarchy to advance their global agenda.

      The administration intentionally withheld desperately needed aid to the city to force Governor Kathleen Blanco into surrendering control of the National Guard and local police to federal authority. This explains why neither FEMA, nor Homeland Security nor the Pentagon lifted a finger to help the distraught townspeople for 4 full days. The administration was using vital supplies as bargaining chips to bribe the governor into submission. The goal was to dismantle regional defenses and militarize a major port city; an ambition that persists to this day.

      The Katrina disaster provided the cover for the Pentagon to launch military operations against US citizens for the first time in modern history. Their effort was badly bungled, but the attempt is chilling nonetheless.

      The strategy that was applied to New Orleans has been used across the nation, although to a lesser degree. Rumsfeld has consistently tried to undermine local preparedness and state control so that he can insert the military into domestic affairs. Within this schema, we can see how the calculated destruction of the National Guard (40% of who are overseas) works perfectly with the goals of the defense establishment and the corporate oligarchy it represents.

      In the next few days we can expect to see an intensive media campaign to divert attention from the activities of the Pentagon, but the facts are clear. As Mr. Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parrish, LA said on Meet the Press:

      "We had Wal-mart deliver three trucks of water. Trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back, said we didn't need them. This was a week go. We had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a coast guard vessel docked in my parish. The coast guard said come get the fuel right way. When we got there with our trucks, they got a word, FEMA says don't give you the fuel. Yesterday, yesterday, FEMA comes in and cuts all our emergency communications lines. They cut them without notice."

      FEMA, which is supposed to work as a federal relief agency for major natural disasters, was functioning entirely as an intermediary for the Defense Dept to subvert relief efforts to force the Governor to capitulate. It is as close to a military-coup as we have ever seen in America.

      The stories of how FEMA tried to sabotage aid and communications are too numerous to record here, but they will undoubtedly surface over time on the internet. The fact is, however, that FEMA was simply executing a larger plan to undermine operations and pave the way for a military take-over of all relief-related activities. That would serve as a tacit invitation for the first military occupation of an American city.

      (Disrupting communications from the city was a major part of the operation. This explains why FEMA "cut all the communication lines" as Broussard notes above. The Pentagon clearly planned to draw a protective curtain around New Orleans so that it could execute their strategy without media scrutiny. I believe that they intended to forcefully evacuate the city to clear away vast swaths of the area earmarked for future private development without local resistance.)

      The media analysis of the events following the hurricane has been superficial and diversionary. The emphasis on looting is a particularly heinous "racist" invention of the Bush administration to shift blame away from their criminal behavior. Even well-meaning liberal pundits and journalists, who have lambasted the administration for "lacking leadership" or for their ham-fisted methods of addressing the tragedy, are missing the point. New Orleans was the site of a massive military operation designed to seize and pacify a major port city in the American heartland. The people, who died waiting for federal assistance while the Governor jousted with the administration, are the casualties in the Pentagon's plan.

      The Red Cross has already admitted that they were deliberately prevented from going into the city where they could have attended to the sick and hungry. So, too, the National Guard was ordered not to give the people food or water. One Guardsman who appeared on national TV admitted to giving water to an elderly woman who refused to evacuate her home said on camera, "It's against the rules, but I gave her water".

      FEMA deliberately withheld water to the people at the convention center because (and I paraphrase the head of the Red Cross) "If we give them water they won't leave."

      (A note on FEMA: FEMA has been effectively gutted and has neither the ability nor the resources to address major natural catastrophes. It has been subsumed into a bureaucracy that has no intention of saving American lives or property when disaster strikes. The money has been sluiced off into other areas of Homeland Security where it is used to spy on American citizens or pay-off the constituents of the administration. This explains why Bush put an incompetent bungler like Michael Brown in charge. He has no real power. The real authority over disaster-management now falls under the Defense Dept.)

      The orders from Washington (which were articulated on many of the major TV news feeds) were to "Empty the city, Cut off communications between the citizenry, and Protect private property." Much of this has already been confirmed in the Broussard statement.

      The zeal with which the Defense Dept approached the siege of New Orleans is impressive. Journalist Wayne Madsen reports that the military was involved in jamming New Orleans's communications. "The emitter is an IF
      (Intermediate Frequency) jammer that is operating south-southwest of New Orleans on board a US Navy ship, according to an anonymous source. The jamming is cross-spectrum and interfering with supereterodyne receiver components, including the emergency radios being used in New Orleans relief efforts."

      Madsen's report coincides with another report from Democracy Now's Sharif Abdel Kouddous in New Orleans:

      "Well Amy, Saturday and Sunday, there was a large number of troops here: Marines, U.S. Coast Guard, National Guard, there's hummers everywhere, everyone is armed with assault rifles. And I think that what many people don't realize is that New Orleans has really become a militarized zone. I think this is the fault and the major error that has occurred with many of the relief operations here is that they weren't relief operations. They were militarized -- you know, there's a curfew set at 6:00 p.m. in New Orleans and especially in the poorer neighborhoods. If you walked out after 6:00 p.m., you would get shot."

      Kouddous report provides an alarming insight into the reality of the New Orleans siege. The operation currently taking place is only slightly different from similar maneuvers in Baghdad or Kabul; the fundamental principles are the same. If we were to see some indication of coordinated resistance, like an armed uprising of New Orleans drug addicts firing on troops, the situation would quickly degenerate into a Falluja-type scenario, with Rumsfeld closing down the entire region to the media and devastating vast swaths of the city to crush the "indigenous terrorists".

      There's nothing accidental about the current developments on the ground.

      The orders are clear: "Empty the city, Cut off communications between the citizenry, and Protect private property." The result is a massive ethnic cleansing operation that will displace tens of thousands of poor, black residents and pave the way for Halliburton and other major Bush contributors to rebuild the city at taxpayer expense. This is the clearest illustration of class-based warfare we have seen to date, but we expect more will follow.

      The Bush administration has established its first domestic beachhead in the "Big Easy", where 50,000 fully-armed troops now patrol the streets giving us our first unobstructed-view of New World Order.

      Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: [email protected]

      Copyright: Mike Whitney. All rights reserved
      Would you let the system sit (shit) down on your head again? NO, DREAD, NO.
      Would you let the system
      make you kill your brother man? NO, DREAD, NO
      .

      Comment


      • #4
        Blah, blah, blah, NWO is coming. Isn't it the German's that are supposed to come out of UN helicopters to enslave the American people. Anyways, make your own thread.

        Greens vs. Levees
        Destructive river-management philosophy.

        By John Berlau

        With all that has happened in the state, it’s understandable that the Louisiana chapter of the Sierra Club may not have updated its website. But when its members get around to it, they may want to change the wording of one item in particular. The site brags that the group is “working to keep the Atchafalaya Basin,” which adjoins the Mississippi River not far from New Orleans, “wet and wild.”




        These words may seem especially inappropriate after the breaking of the levee that caused the tragic events in New Orleans last week. But “wet and wild” has a larger significance in light of those events, and so does the group using the phrase. The national Sierra Club was one of several environmental groups who sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop a 1996 plan to raise and fortify Mississippi River levees.

        The Army Corps was planning to upgrade 303 miles of levees along the river in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. This was needed, a Corps spokesman told the Baton Rouge, La., newspaper The Advocate, because “a failure could wreak catastrophic consequences on Louisiana and Mississippi which the states would be decades in overcoming, if they overcame them at all.”

        But a suit filed by environmental groups at the U.S. District Court in New Orleans claimed the Corps had not looked at “the impact on bottomland hardwood wetlands.” The lawsuit stated, “Bottomland hardwood forests must be protected and restored if the Louisiana black bear is to survive as a species, and if we are to ensure continued support for source population of all birds breeding in the lower Mississippi River valley.” In addition to the Sierra Club, other parties to the suit were the group American Rivers, the Mississippi River Basin Alliance, and the Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi Wildlife Federations.

        The lawsuit was settled in 1997 with the Corps agreeing to hold off on some work while doing an additional two-year environmental impact study. Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain.

        But it is just one illustration of a destructive river-management philosophy that took hold in the ‘90s, influenced the Clinton administration, and had serious policy consequences. Put simply, it’s impossible to understand the delays in building levees without being aware of the opposition of the environmental groups to dams, levees, and anything that interfered with the “natural” river flow. The group American Rivers, which leads coalitions of eco-groups on river policy, has for years actually called its campaign, “Rivers Unplugged.”

        Over the past few years, levees came to occupy the same status for environmental groups as roads in forests — an artificial barrier to nature. They frequently campaigned against levees being built and shored up on the nation’s rivers, including on the Mississippi.

        In 2000, American Rivers’ Mississippi River Regional Representative Jeffrey Stein complained in a congressional hearing that the river’s “levees that temporarily protect floodplain farms have reduced the frequency, extent and magnitude of high flows, robbing the river of its ability … to sustain itself.” Similarly, the National Audubon Society, referring specifically to Louisiana, has this statement slamming levees on its website, “Levees have cut off freshwater flows, harming fishing and creating salt water intrusion.” The left-leaning Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, in describing a grant it gave to Environmental Defense, blasted “the numerous levees and canals built on the lower Mississippi River” because “such structures disrupt the natural flows of the Mississippi River’s sediments.”

        Some went beyond opposition to building or repairing levees. At an Army Corps of Engineers meeting concerning the Mississippi River in 2002, Audubon official Dan McGuiness even recommended “looking at opportunities to lower or remove levees [emphasis added]” from the river.

        The groups argued that the “natural” way would lead to better river management, but it was clear they had other agendas in mind besides flood control. They were concerned because levees were allegedly threatening their beloved exotic animals and plants. In his testimony, American Rivers’s Stein noted that the Mississippi River was home to “double-crested cormorant, rare orchids, and many other species,” which he implied were put at risk by man-made levees.

        So far the environmental movement’s role in the events leading to the flooding has been little discussed. One exception is former Rep. Bob Livingston (R., La.), who told Fox News on Saturday that environmentalists were one of the major reasons levee projects were held up.

        At this point, there are still questions about the particular levees that broke in New Orleans. Care should be taken about drawing direct conclusions about the causes until there are more facts. But there are some important points that are clear that should put in perspective about levee funding and flood control.

        Nearly all flood-control projects — even relatively small ones — are subject to a variety of assessments for effects on wetlands, endangered species, and other environmental concerns. These reviews can be costly and delay projects by years. In the ‘90s, for instance, the Clinton administration’s Environmental Protection Agency required a comprehensive environmental impact statement just to repair a few Colorado River levees that had been destroyed in the floods of 1993.

        The Clinton administration would frequently side with environmentalists on flood-control projects, even against local Democrats. The Army Corps of Engineers under Clinton began implementing a planned “spring rise” of the Missouri River that would raise water levels on the Missouri River during part of the year. This was supported by eco-groups, who argued that this restored the river’s natural flows and protected a bird called the piping plover. But farm groups and others said that combined with the ice melting from winter, the project could increase the risk of flooding in river communities and affect more than 1 million acres of productive farmland. Nearly all the Republicans and Democrats in Missouri’s congressional delegation opposed the plan, as did Missouri’s late Democratic governor, Mel Carnahan. But the Clinton administration refused to budge, and this was a major factor in Bush’s carrying of Missouri in 2000.

        The Bush administration’s flood-control efforts were often relentlessly opposed by environmental groups, and this opposition was frequently echoed by liberal activists and in the press. Bush kept his promise, and his appointees at the Corps of Engineers have stopped the “spring rise” plan that concerned so many about flooding. Environmentalists launched a barrage of criticism and a series of lawsuits. This was also the case with Bush’s moves to stop the Clinton administration’s plans to breach the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers in the northwest. Even though the dams greatly help to control flooding in the region, American Rivers blasted the administration for failing to do enough to save the sockeye salmon native to the region.

        Ironically, among those criticizing Bush for his actions to prevent flooding of the Missouri River was the ever-present anti-Bush environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He chastised Bush in 2004 for “managing the flow of the Missouri River.” If, before Katrina, Bush had proceeded full-speed ahead and fortified the levees of the Mississippi for a Category 5 hurricane, Kennedy and others of his ilk would very likely have criticized Bush for trying to manage the natural flow of the Mississippi. And it’s a good bet that many of the lefty bloggers now critical of Bush for not reinforcing the levees would have cited Bush’s levee fortification as another way he was despoiling the natural environment.

        — John Berlau is the Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
        http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

        “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260).

        Comment


        • #5
          Nah homie, how 'bout I hijack yours? Truth over cowardly denial anytime, all day.....

          Finally, the truth is STARTING to come out:

          http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle10182.htm

          Originally posted by Not On a TV Near You
          The Siege of New Orleans

          "We have been abandoned by our own country.Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area, and bureaucracy has to stand trial." Aaron Broussard

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". George Orwell

          by Mike Whitney

          09/08/05 "ICH" -- -- Neither the Mainstream media nor the alternative-Leftist web sites have told the true story of what really happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. For the people of the region it was the greatest natural catastrophe they'd ever faced. For the Bush administration it was just another opportunity to use fear and anarchy to advance their global agenda.

          The administration intentionally withheld desperately needed aid to the city to force Governor Kathleen Blanco into surrendering control of the National Guard and local police to federal authority. This explains why neither FEMA, nor Homeland Security nor the Pentagon lifted a finger to help the distraught townspeople for 4 full days. The administration was using vital supplies as bargaining chips to bribe the governor into submission. The goal was to dismantle regional defenses and militarize a major port city; an ambition that persists to this day.

          The Katrina disaster provided the cover for the Pentagon to launch military operations against US citizens for the first time in modern history. Their effort was badly bungled, but the attempt is chilling nonetheless.

          The strategy that was applied to New Orleans has been used across the nation, although to a lesser degree. Rumsfeld has consistently tried to undermine local preparedness and state control so that he can insert the military into domestic affairs. Within this schema, we can see how the calculated destruction of the National Guard (40% of who are overseas) works perfectly with the goals of the defense establishment and the corporate oligarchy it represents.

          In the next few days we can expect to see an intensive media campaign to divert attention from the activities of the Pentagon, but the facts are clear. As Mr. Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parrish, LA said on Meet the Press:

          "We had Wal-mart deliver three trucks of water. Trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back, said we didn't need them. This was a week go. We had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a coast guard vessel docked in my parish. The coast guard said come get the fuel right way. When we got there with our trucks, they got a word, FEMA says don't give you the fuel. Yesterday, yesterday, FEMA comes in and cuts all our emergency communications lines. They cut them without notice."

          FEMA, which is supposed to work as a federal relief agency for major natural disasters, was functioning entirely as an intermediary for the Defense Dept to subvert relief efforts to force the Governor to capitulate. It is as close to a military-coup as we have ever seen in America.

          The stories of how FEMA tried to sabotage aid and communications are too numerous to record here, but they will undoubtedly surface over time on the internet. The fact is, however, that FEMA was simply executing a larger plan to undermine operations and pave the way for a military take-over of all relief-related activities. That would serve as a tacit invitation for the first military occupation of an American city.

          (Disrupting communications from the city was a major part of the operation. This explains why FEMA "cut all the communication lines" as Broussard notes above. The Pentagon clearly planned to draw a protective curtain around New Orleans so that it could execute their strategy without media scrutiny. I believe that they intended to forcefully evacuate the city to clear away vast swaths of the area earmarked for future private development without local resistance.)

          The media analysis of the events following the hurricane has been superficial and diversionary. The emphasis on looting is a particularly heinous "racist" invention of the Bush administration to shift blame away from their criminal behavior. Even well-meaning liberal pundits and journalists, who have lambasted the administration for "lacking leadership" or for their ham-fisted methods of addressing the tragedy, are missing the point. New Orleans was the site of a massive military operation designed to seize and pacify a major port city in the American heartland. The people, who died waiting for federal assistance while the Governor jousted with the administration, are the casualties in the Pentagon's plan.

          The Red Cross has already admitted that they were deliberately prevented from going into the city where they could have attended to the sick and hungry. So, too, the National Guard was ordered not to give the people food or water. One Guardsman who appeared on national TV admitted to giving water to an elderly woman who refused to evacuate her home said on camera, "It's against the rules, but I gave her water".

          FEMA deliberately withheld water to the people at the convention center because (and I paraphrase the head of the Red Cross) "If we give them water they won't leave."

          (A note on FEMA: FEMA has been effectively gutted and has neither the ability nor the resources to address major natural catastrophes. It has been subsumed into a bureaucracy that has no intention of saving American lives or property when disaster strikes. The money has been sluiced off into other areas of Homeland Security where it is used to spy on American citizens or pay-off the constituents of the administration. This explains why Bush put an incompetent bungler like Michael Brown in charge. He has no real power. The real authority over disaster-management now falls under the Defense Dept.)

          The orders from Washington (which were articulated on many of the major TV news feeds) were to "Empty the city, Cut off communications between the citizenry, and Protect private property." Much of this has already been confirmed in the Broussard statement.

          The zeal with which the Defense Dept approached the siege of New Orleans is impressive. Journalist Wayne Madsen reports that the military was involved in jamming New Orleans's communications. "The emitter is an IF
          (Intermediate Frequency) jammer that is operating south-southwest of New Orleans on board a US Navy ship, according to an anonymous source. The jamming is cross-spectrum and interfering with supereterodyne receiver components, including the emergency radios being used in New Orleans relief efforts."

          Madsen's report coincides with another report from Democracy Now's Sharif Abdel Kouddous in New Orleans:

          "Well Amy, Saturday and Sunday, there was a large number of troops here: Marines, U.S. Coast Guard, National Guard, there's hummers everywhere, everyone is armed with assault rifles. And I think that what many people don't realize is that New Orleans has really become a militarized zone. I think this is the fault and the major error that has occurred with many of the relief operations here is that they weren't relief operations. They were militarized -- you know, there's a curfew set at 6:00 p.m. in New Orleans and especially in the poorer neighborhoods. If you walked out after 6:00 p.m., you would get shot."

          Kouddous report provides an alarming insight into the reality of the New Orleans siege. The operation currently taking place is only slightly different from similar maneuvers in Baghdad or Kabul; the fundamental principles are the same. If we were to see some indication of coordinated resistance, like an armed uprising of New Orleans drug addicts firing on troops, the situation would quickly degenerate into a Falluja-type scenario, with Rumsfeld closing down the entire region to the media and devastating vast swaths of the city to crush the "indigenous terrorists".

          There's nothing accidental about the current developments on the ground.

          The orders are clear: "Empty the city, Cut off communications between the citizenry, and Protect private property." The result is a massive ethnic cleansing operation that will displace tens of thousands of poor, black residents and pave the way for Halliburton and other major Bush contributors to rebuild the city at taxpayer expense. This is the clearest illustration of class-based warfare we have seen to date, but we expect more will follow.

          The Bush administration has established its first domestic beachhead in the "Big Easy", where 50,000 fully-armed troops now patrol the streets giving us our first unobstructed-view of New World Order.

          Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: [email protected]

          Copyright: Mike Whitney. All rights reserved
          Would you let the system sit (shit) down on your head again? NO, DREAD, NO.
          Would you let the system
          make you kill your brother man? NO, DREAD, NO
          .

          Comment


          • #6
            Me a coward? Your pretty paranoid and dillusional. Your from...Edmonton, right?
            http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

            “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260).

            Comment


            • #7
              When it comes to facing your own fears, that your beloved gov't is a business with a longterm business plan that has nothing to do with humanity, save raw labour, yes, you're scared to face it. IF you're not a coward in other walks of life, then I hope you gain the nuts to face the fact that the citizens are out here alone soon enough to be of some use to us.
              Would you let the system sit (shit) down on your head again? NO, DREAD, NO.
              Would you let the system
              make you kill your brother man? NO, DREAD, NO
              .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Triumph
                Me a coward? Your pretty paranoid and dillusional. Your from...Edmonton, right?
                ????
                What does Edmonton have to do with this?

                Explain?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Un-American
                  ????
                  What does Edmonton have to do with this?

                  Explain?
                  I was just curious, holy fuck, D12World police just hire you Un-American?
                  http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                  “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rainstorm
                    When it comes to facing your own fears, that your beloved gov't is a business with a longterm business plan that has nothing to do with humanity, save raw labour, yes, you're scared to face it. IF you're not a coward in other walks of life, then I hope you gain the nuts to face the fact that the citizens are out here alone soon enough to be of some use to us.
                    First, its not my government, second, I faced my fears when I jumped off the school roof in grade 4, so I'm not scared to face anything.
                    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                    “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Triumph
                      I was just curious, holy fuck, D12World police just hire you Un-American?
                      I'm just confused as to what that means. Being from Edmonton myself, you seemed to be implying that there was something about the city that breeds paranoia and delusions.

                      Just trying to find out for my own information. I'm just curious myself.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ummmmmmm...........yeah, I don't know how to respond to that. Was it a joke? By the way, if you live in the United States of North America, Cheney is your daddy, like it or not......Rumsfeld apparently has dibs on seconds.......
                        Would you let the system sit (shit) down on your head again? NO, DREAD, NO.
                        Would you let the system
                        make you kill your brother man? NO, DREAD, NO
                        .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Un-American
                          I'm just confused as to what that means. Being from Edmonton myself, you seemed to be implying that there was something about the city that breeds paranoia and delusions.

                          Just trying to find out for my own information. I'm just curious myself.
                          No, no, no, I just couldn't remember if I seen that in his location awhile back.

                          Anyways, I was in Edmonton two weeks ago, watched the Shriners parade on Japser. I was fucking bored, the gf was writing her MCAT at the university.
                          http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                          “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Nah, I'm from TO.....
                            Would you let the system sit (shit) down on your head again? NO, DREAD, NO.
                            Would you let the system
                            make you kill your brother man? NO, DREAD, NO
                            .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Triumph
                              First, its not my government, second, I faced my fears when I jumped off the school roof in grade 4, so I'm not scared to face anything.
                              No, you faced the battle between intelligence and stupidity... in your case stupidity won.

                              Comment

                              Post ad widget 300x250

                              Collapse

                              LATEST POSTS

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Deborahlanker, Today, 10:00 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Deborahlanker  
                              Started by Deborahlanker, Today, 08:25 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Deborahlanker  
                              Started by Dave Dirty, 02-02-2016, 02:29 AM
                              5 responses
                              120 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post | K Y L E |  
                              Started by WesleyDrake, Today, 06:54 AM
                              0 responses
                              5 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post WesleyDrake  
                              Started by Deborahlanker, 10-31-2020, 07:43 AM
                              5 responses
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Rapsodia  
                              Started by ioddvrea, Today, 04:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post ioddvrea  
                              Started by pdmhuqwdghko, Today, 01:45 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post pdmhuqwdghko  
                              Started by FrankCobalt, Yesterday, 11:29 PM
                              1 response
                              4 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Doro
                              by Doro
                               
                              Started by FrankCobalt, Yesterday, 11:27 PM
                              1 response
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Doro
                              by Doro
                               
                              Started by FrankCobalt, Yesterday, 11:24 PM
                              1 response
                              5 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Doro
                              by Doro
                               
                              Working...
                              X