It’s True, Congress Really Is Debating a “Mass Casualties Planning” Act, After Buying A Billion Rounds of Ammo

 

112th CONGRESS

112th Congress, 2011–2012.

 

2d Session

 

H. R. 6566

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.

 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

September 28, 2012

Ms. RICHARDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


 

A BILL

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Mass Fatality Planning and Religious Considerations Act’.

 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Emergency preparedness often plans for how to prepare and provide for survivors of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster, but fails to plan for how to prepare for and respond to mass fatalities that result from such an incident.

(2) Funeral homes, cemeteries, and mortuaries could be overwhelmed should mass fatalities arise from a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster.

(3) Different religions have different customs surrounding death; for example, the Jewish and Muslim religions call for burial of the deceased not later than 48 hours after death.

 

SEC. 3. PREPAREDNESS FOR MASS FATALITIES RESULTING FROM A NATURAL DISASTER, ACT OF TERRORISM, OR OTHER MAN-MADE DISASTER.

Section 504 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 314) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(c) Preparedness for Mass Fatalities- In carrying out this section, the Administrator shall provide guidance to and coordinate with appropriate individuals, including representatives from different communities, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations, and religious organizations, to prepare for and respond to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster that results in mass fatalities.’.

US Congress introduces bill ordering FEMA to conduct ‘mass fatality planning’

Ethan A. Huff, Natural News

 

While millions of Americans were busy watching the elephant puppet battle the ass puppet at the latest political circus, the United States Congress quietly introduced a new piece of legislation ordering the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to begin preparing for mass casualties throughout the country.

 

House Resolution 6566, also known as the Mass Fatality Planning and Religious Considerations Act, would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to mandate that FEMA immediately begin conducting “mass fatality planning” in preparation for a major event or series of events that may kill off untold numbers of people.

 

Introduced by Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.), H.R. 6566 provisions that the Administrator of FEMA – William Craig Fugate currently holds the Administrator position at FEMA – provide “guidance and coordination” for dealing with a mass casualty event arising from a natural disaster, terrorist act, or “other man-made disaster.”

 

The bill also ominously sets up the FEMA Administrator as a type of emergency dictator with the power to control how local communities, private businesses, nonprofit organizations, religious organizations, and even individuals prepare for and respond to a mass fatality event.

 

“Funeral homes, cemeteries, and mortuaries could be overwhelmed should mass fatalities arise from a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster,” says the legislation, which also specifies the manner in which people with certain religious affiliations should be buried following their deaths.

 

Contrary to what is being reported by some sources, H.R. 6566 has not yet been passed by either the House of Representatives nor the Senate, which means it has not yet become law. According to govtrack.us, the bill was referred to a congressional committee on September 28 for consideration, and has yet to be reported on by that committee.

 

Even so, the bill’s introduction is troubling to say the least, especially in light of the federal government’s recent purchases of large stocks of hollow-point ammunition, meat, emergency supplies, and riot gear.

 

It seems as though occupiers at all levels of the federal government know something that the rest of us do not know, which would explain their mad rush throughout the past couple of years to pass various “continuity of government” legislation and executive orders, including the more recent National Defense and Authorization Act (NDAA) that provisioned for indefinite detention of American citizens.

 

When put into perspective, all these bills and executive orders point to something massive occurring in the very near future, whether that be a major natural disaster, an economic collapse, a false flag terror attack, or perhaps even World War III. Whatever the case may be, the federal government most certainly appears to be preparing for its own post-disaster survival at the expense of ours.

 

AHT/ARA

The Smartest Man In Tajikistan, Even When He Is In Russia

[Turajonzoda receives criticism about everything that he does or says, but he also receives even more praise and admiration for his personal bravery and honesty.  Even though he has no current political plans, he is the one man who could easily defeat Rahmon in an honest election, and he is known throughout the country (SEE:   Turajonzoda could topple Rahmon).  The recent trip to Russia is falsely held up as proof of  Mr. Turajonzoda’s allegiance to the Russian state, even though it is more than obvious that he only serves One Master, and his faith demands that he live as an honorable man, tending to the needs of  God’s people and doing the right thing for his country the best ways that he knows how.  In this service, he has proven to be the clearest voice denouncing American manipulations and the Wahabbi false “Islamists” who are serving Imperial designs (SEE:Tajik Mufti Who Sees Through Anti-Islamist Western Subversion, Targeted By Tajik Court ).]

H.A.Turadzhonzoda: Our trip to Russia had no political goals

 

Trip brothers Turajonzoda after months of litigation, caused speculation that the meeting with Tajik labor migrants – is preparing for presidential elections in 2013. What caused the brothers to go to Russia, in an interview with “Ozodi” said Haji Akbar Turajonzoda.

– Starting from 27 August, or a whole month we Eshoni Nuriddindzhon visited different regions of Russia. In an average day met with eight – ten thousand people. In conversations with the people we are only called to approve of, and denied illicit and brought to the people God’s call. We urge people not to forget about God, about who they are and about their religious duties. Therefore, our trip had no political goals, and the fact that some media wrote Tajikistan, make me regret.

– The presidential elections in Tajikistan, and therefore believe that your trip is to them. As if you have started to promote themselves and their ideas out of the country, because they (migrant workers) have the right to vote, and are the breadwinners of their families.

– This is not true. We have no political objectives and are not going to use this trip to the election. Because it does not have the desire to participate in the elections. Another problem is that in Tajikistan in general are elections. Elections in which the voice of the people would influence the results, do not exist in Tajikistan. The Electoral Commission will write everything that the government wants. Until then, until you change the electoral law and the electoral commission will not be created from representatives of political parties – this election – the election of the Soviet period. I believe that a reasonable person, no change of the electoral law must not take part in them.

– Do you mean the applicants and candidates?

– Yes, that candidates for the presidential election, or parliament. Until then, until you change the law, participation in elections meaningless. Therefore, those who say that, they say, went to advertise themselves, are useless words. If someone wants to save Tajikistan, should change the election law.

– But if the election law will be changed in such a way, as they want political power and will be accepted, then you can participate in the election as a candidate?

– Yes, it can. But I could no longer change your mind, I’m old. I am over 60 years old. But you can join the group, supporting one of the deserving candidates. Until then, I’m not going to take part in election activities. No one will advocate and support.

– But in the last parliamentary elections you supported the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan.

– For two years ago I did. And then I made this point. But the brothers of revival vowed that the president promised to hold transparent elections. I said then that it was not feasible. As long as your representatives will not be included in the polling stations, it is not feasible. But they assured me that they believe in the promise.

– In an article published in the “Jumhuriyat” after your trip to Russia, they say, if the purpose of the brothers Turajonzoda was only meeting with migrant workers, why they were met by cars that are not even in the park, Vladimir Putin.

– One hundred percent assure you that it was not a state machine. These were the cars of our own non-Tajik and Tajik brothers. And again I say to you, they were not the government.

– In addition you, brothers accused Turajonzoda that you went to Russia to collect “Nazr” donations, and it was published in the media.

– In fact, very sad, that make such findings, and so presented. Brothers, who wrote this, for life itself are asylum. Ask here and there are different “grants.” Asking the government, the banks. We have never engaged in begging. The people with whom we met were not our murids, or murids our father. Therefore, such talk does not make any sense.

– Is it true that you called for migrants to obey Putin?

– I read these things. We did not say obey Putin. We talked, obey the laws, respect the language, customs and culture of the Russian. Yes, two times Eshoni Nuriddindzhon spoke about Putin as a good man. Yes, God will direct him to the right path. We are not called to anything other than obedience to God. Indeed, the law must comply.Unfortunately, some things are published not tested. From the day we arrived in Russia, the Tajik authorities ordered managers diaspora keep our meetings with migrants.

Source – Radio “Ozodi”

Lebanon launches major security operation to contain new outburst of Syria-linked violence

Lebanon launches major security operation to contain new outburst of Syria-linked violence

Associated Press

BEIRUT –  Lebanese troops launched a major security operation on Monday to open all roads and force gunmen off the streets, trying to contain an outburst of violence set off by the assassination of a top intelligence official who was a powerful opponent of Syria. Sectarian clashes overnight killed at least two people.

Opponents of Syria have blamed the regime in Damascus for the killing of Lebanese Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hassan in a Beirut car bomb on Friday. With Lebanon already tense and deeply divided over the civil war next door, the assassination has threatened to drag the country back into the kind of sectarian strife that plagued it for decades — much of it linked to Syria.

Sporadic cracks of gunfire rang out in Beirut as soldiers backed by armored personal carriers with heavy machine guns took up position on major thoroughfares and dismantled roadblocks. At times, troops exchanged gunfire with Sunni gunmen.

Al-Hassan was a Sunni who challenged Syria and its powerful Lebanese ally, the Shiite militant group Hezbollah. The uprising in Syria is dominated by the Sunni majority fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad, who like many who dominate his regime, is a member of the Alawite sect — an offshoot of Shiite Islam. Lebanon and Syria share similar sectarian divides that have fed tensions in both countries, increasingly.

Most of Lebanon’s Sunnis have backed Syria’s mainly Sunni rebels, while Lebanese Shiites tend to back Assad.

Al-Hassan’s assassination has imperiled Lebanon’s fragile political balance. Many politicians blamed Syria for the killing and angry protesters tried to storm the government palace after al-Hassan’s funeral on Sunday, venting their rage at leaders they consider puppets of a murderous Syrian regime. But were pushed back by troops who opened fire in the air and fired tear gas.

Prime Minister Najib Mikati, a Sunni, told As-Safir newspaper that when he took up his post last year, he intended to protect all Lebanese, particularly Sunnis.

“I was convinced that through this mission, I am protecting my country, my people and especially fellow members of my sect.”

The prime minister of Lebanon is usually a Sunni according to a sectarian division of top posts in the state. Over the past year, pro-Syrian Hezbollah and its allies have come to dominate the government.

On Sunday night, a group of anti-Syrian protesters started an open-ended sit-in outside Mikati’s house in his hometown of Tripoli. The protesters said they will only end the sit-in when Mikati resigns.

Ambassadors of Britain, the U.S., Russia, China and France and the U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon met President Michel Suleiman to express support for him.

“The permanent members at the United Nations call upon all the parties in Lebanon to preserve stability,” Derek Plumbly, the U.N. representative, told reporters in Arabic while surrounded by the five ambassadors. “We strongly condemn any attempt to shake Lebanon’s stability.”

Overnight, Sunni and Shiite gunmen clashed in two Beirut neighborhoods and officials also reported heavy clashes late Sunday and early Monday in the northern city of Tripoli and towns between the capital Beirut and the southern city of Sidon.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said a man was killed in shooting in the Wadi Zayneh area north of Sidon and another person died in the Tripoli clashes. The officials said the clashes wounded at least six people in Beirut and 10 in Tripoli.

An Associated Press photographer saw dozens of gunmen roaming the streets on Monday in Beirut’s predominantly Sunni neighborhood of Tariq Jadideh, where much of the fighting has taken place. Local Sunni leaders were calling the gunmen by telephone urging them to pull out of the streets.

In some roads around Tariq Jadideh, masked Sunni gunmen set up checkpoints, stopping cars and asking people about their destination and where they were coming from.

A woman who lives in the neighborhood said the fighting began shortly after midnight and lasted until sunrise.

“We couldn’t sleep because of the shooting. There were also some booms,” she said, referring to rocket-propelled grenades. She asked that her name not be used for fear of reprisals.

In Tripoli, residents said scores of soldiers deployed around the city in an attempt to bring back calm. The military also set up checkpoints, searched cars and asked people for identity cards.

Obama-Romney Compete for the Honor of Starting WWIII

Two defenders of American imperialism

Obama-Romney foreign policy debate

In the final debate of the US presidential election, to be held Monday night in Boca Raton, Florida, President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney can be expected to tout their contrasting “visions” on US foreign policy. However, on the fundamental issues of concern to the American corporate and financial elite, the two candidates are entirely united.

They will both declare themselves defenders of “democracy” and “freedom,” even as American money and weapons prop up dictatorships like the Saudi monarchy, the kleptocratic rulers of Congo and other resource-rich African states, and military-backed regimes from Honduras to Egypt. They accept unquestioningly the necessity to use military force and political subversion to safeguard the economic and strategic interests of the American financial aristocracy anywhere in world.

There will presumably be verbal clashes. Romney will seek to take advantage of the debacle last month, when armed attackers overran the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador and three other Americans. Obama will seek to counter by citing the greatest “success” of his foreign policy, the killing of Osama bin Laden by an assassination squad of US Navy Seals.

These disputes, however, take place within a common political framework. They amount to wrangling about which individual will be more effective in implementing a policy on which they fundamentally agree.

Behind the backs of the American people, the United States is preparing new military interventions and wars of aggression against Syria and Iran, first of all, and ultimately against China, Russia and other rival powers.

The entire process demonstrates the thoroughly undemocratic character of the election itself, in which the American people have no say on any of the fundamental issues.

Obama won the Democratic Party nomination in 2008 over Hillary Clinton in large measure because he positioned himself as the more “antiwar” of the two candidates, in part by repeatedly citing her 2002 vote to authorize George W. Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq. He won the general election over McCain by taking advantage of the massive popular discontent with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Once in office, however, Obama reappointed Bush’s secretary of defense, Robert Gates, selected a former general as his national security adviser, and his “hawkish” former rival Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. He doubled and then tripled the US troop commitment to Afghanistan, while adhering to the withdrawal schedule in Iraq negotiated by the Bush administration.

Last year, Obama played the decisive role in facilitating the NATO war against Libya, which led to the overthrow and murder of Muammar Gaddafi and 50,000 deaths. Now his administration is preparing a similar fate for the Assad regime in Syria, where the US-instigated civil war has already claimed 30,000 lives.

US troops, warplanes and drone missiles are now deployed over a far wider area than under the Bush administration, including the Arabian Peninsula, the Horn of Africa, and much of the Sahara and North Africa, in addition to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The maneuvers of the US Navy in the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean, as well as Obama’s agreements to forward-deploy American ground troops in Australia and the Philippines, are part of a long-range strategy of encircling China with US military bases and client states, to preserve American domination of the Asia-Pacific region despite China’s rise as an economic power.

Recent polls have found that the vast majority of Americans favor a rapid withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, and similar levels of opposition to US military-political involvement in the Middle East. There is virtually no popular support for a new US war in Syria or in Iran. Yet within the financial aristocracy and among its leading political operatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, the necessity for such future military aggression is taken for granted.

For more than a decade, there has been a widening gulf between the imperialist foreign policy pursued by the ruling elite and the sentiments of the broad masses. In election after election, the two ruling parties have worked together to deprive the American people of any opportunity to influence decisions on war and peace.

In October 2002, House and Senate Democrats voted to authorize war with Iraq in an effort to take the issue off the table only weeks before the congressional elections. In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry positioned himself as a war hero auditioning for the role of commander-in-chief, not an opponent of the war in Iraq. In 2006, when the Democrats were catapulted by antiwar sentiment into control of both the House and the Senate—to their own surprise and dismay—they immediately declared that impeaching George W. Bush for the lies that paved the way to war in Iraq was off the agenda.

In 2008 came the biggest swindle of all. The supposed “antiwar” Obama won the White House and proceeded to conduct an even more militaristic foreign policy than that pursued by Bush. The response among the liberals and pseudo-left elements that backed Obama as the alternative to the Republicans was to fold up their antiwar banners and rally to the side of the administration as it escalated the war in Afghanistan, waged war in Libya, and prepared for even bloodier adventures in Syria and Iran.

The American ruling class has dragged the population of the country—and the entire world—into unending war and neocolonialism, which is leading inexorably to a global conflict of unimaginable dimensions. This process can be halted only through the independent intervention of the American and international working class.

Obama and Romney are both representatives of American imperialism, the most reactionary and anti-democratic force on the planet. The Socialist Equality Party urges workers, young people and all those opposed to militarism and war to vote for our candidates, Jerry White for president and Phyllis Scherrer for vice president, and attend the regional conferences called by the SEP this weekend and the next.

For more information on the SEP campaign and to attend a conference in your area, visit www.socialequality.com.

Patrick Martin

Anxious Turks suspect US plot is behind Syria’s implosion

Anxious Turks suspect US plot is behind Syria’s implosion

Locals in eastern Turkey, bearing the brunt of the fallout from Turkey’s involvement in Syria, believe Ankara is merely a pawn in US plans to foment conflict in the region.

By Emiko Jozuka

 

ANTAKYA, TURKEY

In an empty coffee house in Antakya, local tradesman Ahmet Sari’s face crumples in anger as he speaks about Syria.

“What’s happening in Syria is all part of America‘s great project to reshape the borders of the Middle East.  America and its allies don’t care about bringing democracy to the Syrian people.  Look at what happened to Iraq!” he fumes. “The imperialist countries are only after oil and mineral resources.”

Nineteen months into Syria’s conflict, resentment ofAnkara and anti-US sentiment simmer in Antakya, which lies just over the border with Syria. The province is grappling with an ailing trade and tourism sector and an influx of refugees and rebel fighters. Locals blame the Turkish government for dragging them into the conflict by backing the Syrian opposition and aligning Turkeywith the opposition’s Western allies.

The current administration’s “zero problems with neighbors” foreign policy, which stood strong for several years, now rings hollow as Turkey’s diplomatic ties with Syria and its ally Iran sour due to Ankara’s support for the rebels. And many say that all of these problems can be traced back to the US, who they are convinced got involved with, and perhaps even fomented, the Syrian unrest to loosen up regional powers’ grip on oil, enlisting Turkey as a pawn in the process. It had little to do with support for democracy, they believe.

Stirring up the ‘beehive’

The beliefs stem in part from a bold Bush administration political proposal that has faded into obscurity in the West, but remains lodged in the minds of many here. Known as the Greater Middle East Initiative, it was formally introduced by then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2006 at a conference in Tel Aviv. Her references to “the birth pangs of a New Middle East” and the unveiling there of a new map of the region featuring a “Free Kurdistan” are still remembered with resentment.

Even with a new administration in the White House that has sought to distance itself from the previous administration’s Middle East policies, many in the region are suspicious of US motives and don’t believe that the various uprisings began as indigenous, people-driven movements, independent of any US involvement.

Refik Eryilmaz, a Turkish parliamentarian from Antakya with the opposition Republican People’s Party, says that Western superpowers are trying to incite a sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites so that countries in the region fragment along ethno-religious lines, becoming weaker in the process.

Syria is predominantly Sunni, but President Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite, a Shiite offshoot, as is most of his government.

“The access to oil will be made easier when people in these regions are divided and fighting amongst themselves. Both the US and Israel want to weaken Iran and strengthen their own position in the Middle East.  But to do this, first they must weaken Syria and replace the current government with someone who supports them instead of Iran,” says Mr. Eryilmaz.

This suspicion – that outside intervention is stirring up sectarian strife in Syria – is a view shared by many in Antakya, Turkey’s most ethno-religiously diverse province.

Although Nihat Yenmis, president of the Alevi Cultural Foundation (AKAD) in Iskenderun, is convinced that sectarian violence will not seep into Turkey, he laments the plight of Syrian civilians, caught up in the cross-fire of a conflict that he interprets as planned and stoked by outside intervention.

“All ethno-religious groups have lived side by side in this region for centuries.  But if someone hits a beehive from the outside, they will destroy the peace within the hive. All the bees inside the hive will fight with one another. That’s exactly what the US is doing in the Middle East,” says Mr. Yenmis.

Gilbert Achcar, a professor of international relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, says that the Greater Middle East Initiative has long since been abandoned, and all that remains is the deep skepticism of US motives that it spurred. Those in the Middle East tend to attribute more power to the US than it actually has, he says.

“The US is overwhelmed by the situation in the Middle East and is not in control, let alone plotting something. The GMEI never took root. It just provided a grand name that fueled people’s imaginations, and conspiracy theories were invented,” he says.

A penchant for conspiracies

The region’s penchant for Western conspiracy theories is long-standing, beginning with the then-secret 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement that divided up the region between the British and the French, Mr. Achcar says.

That history influenced the perception of the Bush administration’s Greater Middle East Partnership Initiative, later renamed the New Middle East Project, that was drawn up in 2004 in response to potential “threats of terrorism” in the wake of 9/11.  The mission was to bolster democracy and socio-economic development in the Middle East and North Africa and build a bulwark against the expansion of radical terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda.

But the initiative stalled in the face of heightened anti-American sentiment in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Prominent Arab figures were quick to criticize it as another US attempt to “reform” a region it did not fully understand.  In an article published in pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat in 2004, the chief editor of the Arab Human Development Report, Nader Fergany, criticized the “arrogant” worldview of the the Bush administration which “causes it to behave as if it can decide the fate of states and peoples.”

Tasked with alleviating Arab mistrust, the US selected Turkey as a key bridge between the US and the Middle East. The ruling Justice and Development Party‘s promotion of “conservative democracy” appealed to the West because of its reformist stance, and to Islamic countries in the Middle East due to its emphasis on a traditional Muslim identity.

But today, Turkey’s role as a bridge between the West and the Arab world on the Syrian conflict has again raised suspicions. Its alliances with the US and autocratic countries like Saudi Arabiaand Qatar, who have also come out as strong backers of the Syrian opposition, have provoked accusations that Turkey is more intent on weakening secular Syria and reinstating a Sunni government than in democracy.

While Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed last year on a live broadcast that the US initiative never took root, some in the Middle East still refer back to Mr. Erdogan’s older statements of being GMEI’s co-chairman, and remain convinced that a US-inspired scheme – with Turkey taking the lead – is underway.

“Perhaps the US is doing what’s right for its own country and implementing a foreign policy that will protect its dominance in the world, but we have to inquisition the countries that are acting as a US pawn.  Many people in Turkey think that Turkey is merely serving US interests in the region to its own detriment,” says Eryilmaz. 

Back in Antakya’s coffee house, with no end in sight to the Syrian conflict, local trader Ahmet Sari shows how deeply this sentiment reaches.

“So many people have died unnecessarily in Syria – children are dying,” he says, wearily. “We just want this war to stop and for there to be peace. We don’t hate the American people.  We just want the US administration to stop trying to spread its expansionist policies.”