Where Seldom is Heard a Discouraging Word … Like “Bribery”

I really did not know that I could still be so surprised, even shocked, by corruption in the Congress of the United States. I thought my coating of cynicism was already more than thick enough to be impervious to any new revelations. I was wrong. Consider the following.

Seven members of the House of Representatives steered hundreds of millions of dollars in largely no-bid contracts to clients of a lobbying firm, PMA Group. In fiscal year 2008 alone, the seven lawmakers sponsored $112 million worth of “earmarks” (construction and other projects paid for by the government) for PMA clients while accepting more than $350,000 in contributions from the firm’s clients and lobbyists.

Such behavior should be investigated by the House ethics committee, should it not? And it was. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued a report stating unanimously that the Congressmembers had not violated any rules or laws. “Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member’s actions are being influenced by campaign contributions.”

Ethics watchdogs issued sharp denunciations, citing portions of the report that showed that the private companies themselves thought that their donations helped them win earmarks.

One of the seven Congressmembers investigated was Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.) The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), a government agency not composed of members of Congress, which conducts preliminary reviews, found probable cause that Visclosky sought contributions in exchange for steering federal contracts to contributors. The OCE was in possession of e-mails suggesting that Visclosky’s fundraisers were specifically targeted toward PMA’s clients who were seeking earmarks. Even though the OCE recommended that the more powerful House ethics committee subpoena Visclosky and his staff to answer questions under oath about his earmarking practice, the members of the House committee chose not to subpoena Visclosky or any of the pertinent records.

Wait, it gets better — The FBI actually raided the PMA offices as part of an investigation into whether the company had directed illegal campaign contributions to lawmakers who helped clients obtain earmarks, and in 2009 a federal grand jury issued subpoenas to Visclosky, one of his former aides, and his political committees.2 But nothing — apparently nothing — could move the members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the United States House of Representatives to condemn their comrades.

This is the kind of Congressional corruption that drives so many Americans – on the right and on the left — to think of forming a new party. At times, the thought hits me as well. But two factors interfere. One, the overwhelming role played by money in American electoral campaigns can trump the best of intentions. Wealthy elites have no need for any other party. The Democrats and Republicans serve their needs just fine, thank you.

And two, ideology. Gathering together a lot of people who are turned off by Congressional venality and amorality sounds good until the ideological shit hits the fan. There will undoubtedly be a wide range of ideological leanings in any such group because people who are serious about third parties like to be “non-sectarian” or “non-exclusionary”, but this typically leads to serious friction, disputes and splits. Even if you specify something like “the United States should get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible”, that can still take various conflicting forms; people’s politics are complicated, not to mention confused. To those who like to tell themselves and others that they don’t have any particular ideology I say this: If you have thoughts about why the world is the way it is, why society is the way it is, why people are the way they are, what a better way would look like, and if your thoughts are at all organized, that’s your ideology, even if it’s not wholly conscious as such. Better to organize those thoughts as best you can, become very conscious of them, and consciously avoid getting involved with a political party that is incompatible. It’s like a bad marriage.

Things are indeed polarizing in America. There’s The Tea Party on the right and The Coffee Party on the left. On the face of it, The Tea Party scarcely makes any sense. A seemingly burgeoning new movement semi-hysterically marching and screaming that their beloved free enterprise is threatened by the “socialist” Barack Obama. (What next, that he’s a committed “Marxist” or “communist”? They’ve probably already said that; if you’re going to be dumb you may as well go all the way and be retarded.)

A group of more mainstream conservatives gathered February 17 at a Virginia estate once owned by George Washington and called for a return to the principles of Washington’s time to fight the political battles that lie ahead. They produced a declaration, “The Mount Vernon Statement: Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century”. It is a short statement, a mere 546 words, yet the idea of “limited government” or “self-government” is referred to seven times. These people, no less than the Teapartyers, are obsessed with the idea that government intrusion into society of virtually any kind is harmful, or at least much inferior to what could be derived from “free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions”, as they put it. This is standard and familiar conservative doctrine to be sure, but now feeding and powering a whole new generation of right-wing activists.

To counter the arguments of these activists, progressives need to present their own doctrine about the role and value of government in people’s lives, a concise summary of which I just happen to have prepared in my essay: “The US invades, bombs and kills for it … but do Americans really believe in free enterprise?” It was written several years ago, as the examples I use make clear, but this matters not for the ideological principles have not changed. The essay concludes: “Activists have to remind the American people of what they’ve already learned but seem to have forgotten: that they don’t want more government, or less government; they don’t want big government, or small government; they want government on their side.” 3
Paraguay, Honduras and Barack Obama

During his campaign for the presidency of Paraguay, former bishop Fernando Lugo promised to bring health care to the millions unable to afford it. A month after Lugo took office in August 2008, the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare (MSPBS) gradually began to make some public health services free, waiving fees for office, outpatient and emergency room visits. Later, hospital admission fees were eliminated, along with charges for intensive care, post-op incision care, treatment in an infant incubator, oxygen therapy, surgery and other services. In 2009, fees were removed for diagnostic tests in all specialties, and for dental and ophthalmological services. Almost all public health services in Paraguay are now free of charge. “What we are doing is making health care a right, regardless of a person’s ability to pay,” said the director general of the MSPBS.

After 61 years of rule by the right-wing Colorado Party, the Paraguayan left needs to institute various reforms to make sure that free health care is sustainable in the long term.4

So what would it take for free health care to reach the shores of the world’s only superpower? Well, a president who believed in it and who had some backbone. But every passing day brings us fresh evidence that the man has no backbone. The Republicans, or certain Democrats, or a powerful lobby, or Israel applies a little pressure and the man buckles. Like a shack in Haiti during a quake.

As to his beliefs … In May of last year I wrote in this report: “The problem, I’m increasingly afraid, is that the man doesn’t really believe strongly in anything, certainly not in controversial areas. He learned a long time ago how to take positions that avoid controversy, how to express opinions without clearly and firmly taking sides, how to talk eloquently without actually saying anything, how to leave his listeners’ heads filled with stirring clichés, platitudes, and slogans. And it worked. Oh how it worked! What could happen now, as President of the United States, to induce him to change his style?”

How long before Fernando Lugo lets slip some critical remarks about the behemoth to the north that tosses Paraguay into the ODE (Officially Designated Enemy) dumpster along with Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, et al.? Undoubtedly, there are any number of old-time right-wing military officers in Paraguay who are just itching to duplicate what happened in Honduras. I can hear them now — “We don’t need no stinkin’ socialist government with its stinkin’ communist free health care” — and just waiting for someone at the Pentagon to casually nod his head. And if that happens, the Obama administration will embrace the Paraguayan caudillos just as they’ve done with the Honduran golpistas, the latest show of support being the announcement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the resumption of aid and her urging Latin American countries to recognize the new Honduran government, despite its serious and daily violations of human rights. 5
Help wanted for an animated political cartoon

Help wanted for an animated political cartoon

I have written a script for a short video — estimated 5 to 10 minutes long, to be shown on YouTube and elsewhere on the Internet, tentatively entitled “Be nice to America. Or we’ll bring democracy to your country.” We need a cartoonist to draw the images and a technical person to create the movement using Adobe flash or other software, and to add the narration. Could be one person for both functions. The persons should be in basic agreement with the political ideas expressed in the script, which is available for a confidential reading upon request. Halfway decent pay. Write to:

Notes

1. Washington Post, February 26, 2010 ↩
2. Washington Post, February 27, 2010 ↩
3. http://killinghope.org/superogue/system.htm ↩
4. Inter Press Service, January 6, 2010 ↩
5. Associated Press, March 5, 2010 ↩

Not Your Father’s Army

Most of us Americans have a deep and abiding respect and admiration for our country’s fighting men who have served–and are serving–within the US Armed Forces. We appreciate their willingness to put themselves in harm’s way for the preservation of our nation’s liberty and independence. We honor their sacrifice. Indeed, many of us share that sacrifice with the deaths, dismemberments, and paralysis of our most cherished loved ones who were killed or injured in the line of duty.

It is time, however, that we awaken to the reality of what our military is becoming and where it is heading. Suffice it to say, this is not your father’s army.

On December 8, 1941, my father, Ed Baldwin–along with his two brothers, Bud and Gene–marched down to a recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to enlist. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the day before, and no branch of service had to beg people to enlist that day. Bud joined the Navy. Gene joined the Marines. When government officials saw Dad’s resume, they selected him to help construct the atomic bomb. All three brothers served their country with distinction throughout the war.

But what all of us need to realize is, World War II was the last constitutionally fought war in which America has been engaged. The United Nations was created at the end of WWII, and ever since then, our military forces have increasingly become the “peacekeeping” arm of that evil institution.

Since WWII, American forces have fought major wars in South Korea, South Vietnam (including Laos and Cambodia), Kosovo, the Persian Gulf (Kuwait), Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan–all for the benefit of the United Nations. Add to these major wars lesser conflicts (except to those Americans killed or wounded in them) such as Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Congo (Zaire), Iran, El Salvador, Libya, Grenada, Honduras, Chad, Panama, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, and Somalia. And this does not take into account the countless CIA-sponsored Black Ops missions that have taken place all over the world.

Yes, American forces have been used to both put people in power and take people out of power all over the world. And as often as not, the people we put in power were counted among the “bad guys,” while the people we removed from power were “good guys.” Remember, our own CIA was the organization most responsible for the rise to power of Osama Bin Laden. And it was the US government that surreptitiously set up the murder of Dr. Jonas Savimbi, who was one of the best friends the United States had overseas. Plus, does anyone remember how the US treated our friend, the Shah of Iran? Yes, some of us are old enough to remember when Iran was one of the best friends we had in that region of the world.

But mind you, not one single war in which American forces have been engaged since WWII has been constitutionally fought. Not one!

Ever since the United Nations was created, its interests have dominated the usage of US forces. In fact, our military today is quickly morphing into the tip of the spear for a burgeoning, global New World Order. To those with eyes to see, the evidence is everywhere. It’s not even being hidden anymore. Have you seen that new US Navy television commercial? It boldly proclaims, “The US Navy: A GLOBAL FORCE For Good.” (Emphasis added.)

This politically correct, UN-dominated New World Order has changed (and is changing) our US military right before our eyes. It has taken the greatest and proudest independent fighting force in the world–one created to defend the people and property of the United States–and turned it into a global military policeman for the evil Machiavellians at the UN.

In order to convert the US military into a true “Global Force,” several changes are being forced upon our fighting men.

First, more and more women are entering the US military.

Currently, women comprise about 20% of military personnel. And for the first time in US history, women are actively engaged in combat units in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The massive integration of women in combat may serve the interests of political correctness, but it does not serve the interests of combat effectiveness. Neither does it serve the interests of family and child rearing. And I don’t care how old fashioned that sounds!

Wives and mothers are the backbone of family nurturing. To willingly take mothers away from their children–and subject both mother and child to the separation and suffering that military life demands–is both unnatural and cruel.

And there is another stark reality that few people want to discuss: the fact that 30% of all women in the US military are raped. Yes, you read it right: 30%.

According to NPR, “In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.”

See the report at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103844570

Government and military brass know that the introduction of women into the military environment (especially the combat environment) is reaping problems of epidemic proportions, but they are deliberately ignoring and even covering them up.

For example, does anyone recall the name Jamie Leigh Jones? According to ABC News, “A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

“Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.”

See the report at:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

And this story leads into another phenomenon being created within this New World Order army: the way our government and military are increasing their use of “private” or “independent” contractors. In the past, these people were always known simply as mercenaries. Call them what you will, mercenaries are now a major component of the way our government wages war.

According to Global Research, “The growing use of private armies not only subjects target populations to savage warfare but makes it easier for the White House to subvert domestic public opinion and wage wars.

“Americans are less inclined to oppose a war that is being fought by hired foreign mercenaries, even when their own tax dollars are being squandered to fund it.

“‘The increasing use of contractors, private forces, or, as some would say, “mercenaries,” makes wars easier to begin and to fight–it just takes money and not the citizenry,’ said Michael Ratner, of New York’s Center for Constitutional Rights. ‘To the extent a population is called upon to go to war, there is resistance, a necessary resistance to prevent wars of self-aggrandizement, foolish wars, and, in the case of the United States, hegemonic imperialist wars.'”

See the report at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14972

Remember, at any given moment, there might be as many–if not more–mercenaries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as there are US military forces. For example, according to the Christian Science Monitor, in early 2008, the number of mercenaries fighting in Iraq numbered more than 190,000. Remember, in addition to the benefit of not drafting US citizens to fight these perpetual wars (and thus avoid incurring the wrath and resistance of the American public), mercenaries enjoy the luxury of not having to comply with the military rules of engagement. And the stories of atrocities committed by US-employed mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan are too numerous to list.

In addition to the Jamie Jones case mentioned above, consider the case where Blackwater (now called Xe) mercenaries mowed down 17 Iraqi citizens in an unprovoked attack. And, of course, no one at Blackwater was held accountable for these murders. Reports of abuse, cruelty, and savagery by mercenaries in Iraq are commonplace. According to the Global Research report, “Many soldiers of fortune on private payrolls previously served dictators in South Africa, Chile, and elsewhere.”

The Washington Post quotes Brigadier General Karl Horst, an advisor to the U.S. Joint Force Command as saying, “These guys [mercenaries] run loose in this country [Iraq] and do stupid stuff. There’s no authority over them, so you can’t come down on them hard when they escalate force . . . They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place.”

And you wonder why the United States is viewed so negatively around the world?

Granted, there is a place and proper use for mercenaries. Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor of The Progress Report, rightly observes, “One alternative to U.S. military action against terrorists who have attacked the U.S. and other countries, and are threatening further attacks, is to enact Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to ‘grant letters of Marque and Reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water.’ A ‘reprisal’ means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forces used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.

“‘Marque’ is related to ‘marching’ and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.

“Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country, as happened with the attack by persons who were in Afghanistan.”

See Foldvary’s column at:

http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm

And that is exactly what Congressman Ron Paul attempted to do. He proposed H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. See Dr. Paul’s Press Release at:

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

However, neither the Congress nor the White House–Democrat or Republican–has any intention of following the Constitution; therefore, Letters of Marque and Reprisal were never authorized. As a result, no authority has been granted to these mercenaries to wage war on behalf of anyone, especially not the people of the United States.

But what unauthorized mercenaries do accomplish is to fulfill the demands of internationalists and globalists to use unaccountable and uncontrolled (at least by normal military protocols) private armies for their own personal and nefarious purposes.

The next step for our politically correct “Global Force” is the authorization for homosexuals to serve openly in the US military. This has long been the goal of globalists, and it is now about to happen.

It was globalist President Bill Clinton who introduced the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that allows homosexuals to serve in the US armed forces–but not openly. Of course, this was a major departure from US military history. From George Washington’s Continental army until the Clinton administration, homosexuality was deemed “incompatible” with military service. And now globalist Barack Obama is leading Congress to change the policy even further by allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US military.

However, please consider this: if our governmental and military leaders would cover up the raping of American servicewomen by servicemen, don’t you know that they will cover up the raping of American servicemen by homosexual servicemen? Mark this down: mixing sex (heterosexual or homosexual) and military service is a recipe for disaster. And the potential damage inflicted upon military units (especially combat units) is exacerbated exponentially by the introduction of large numbers of homosexuals and women into those units. (This is the universal sentiment of virtually every active duty or retired serviceman I have ever spoken with.) But it does fit perfectly into the plans of the New World Order architects, who want to use the US military as much for the advancement of their politically correct agenda as they do for any actual military purpose.

Plus, dare I mention how that many violent gangs in North America are encouraging their members to join the US military in order to learn tactics and skills, which enable them to more effectively inflict their criminality upon the American people? Well, it’s true. And our military brass knows it’s true, and yet they still allow these thugs to enter our military. Hispanic gang members, especially, are entering the US military in droves.

According to a report in The American Conservative magazine, “[R]ecent figures indicate that gang membership in the Armed Forces significantly surpasses civilian levels. Stars and Stripes reported that 1 to 2 percent of the military are gang members, compared to 0.02 percent of the general population.”

See the report at:

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/may/05/0012/

No, ladies and gentlemen, it is not your father’s army. And, sadly, while many of our fine military leaders (not to mention many of our active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines) see all of this taking place, they are practically powerless to stop it, because political correctness and globalism run rampant in Washington, D.C., including at the Pentagon.

Obama Provokes War Against China and Iran

The possibility of yet another U.S. war became more real last week, when the Obama administration sharply confronted both China and Iran. The first aggressive act was performed by Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who “warned” China that it must support serious economic sanctions against Iran (an act of war).

Clinton said: “China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing effect that a nuclear-armed Iran would have, from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supply.”

The implication here is that China will be cut off from a major energy source if they do not support U.S. foreign policy — this, too, would equal an act of war.

A more direct military provocation occurred later when Obama agreed to honor a Bush-era military pact with Taiwan, a small island that lies off the mainland coast of China, and is claimed by China as its own territory. Taiwan has been a U.S. client state ever since the defeated nationalist forces fled there from China in the aftermath of the 1949 revolution. Taiwan has remained a bastion of U.S. intrigue and anti-China agitation for the past six decades. Obama has recently upped the ante by approving a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, including:

“… 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles, advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship targets and two refurbished minesweepers.” (The New York Times, January 30, 2010).

The same article quotes a Chinese government official who responded, accurately, by calling the arms sale “… a gross intervention into China’s internal affairs, [and] seriously endanger[ing] China’s national security…” In 1962, When Russia supplied missiles to Cuba, near Florida’s coast, the U.S. interpreted this to be an act of war.

China responded harshly to the Taiwan arms deals, imposing “an unusually broad series of retaliatory measures… including sanctions against American companies that supply the weapon systems for the arms sales.” These U.S. arms manufacturers are giant corporations who have huge political influence in the Obama administration, and are likely to further push the U.S. government towards an even more aggressive response.

Obama’s polices against China have been far more aggressive than Bush’s, making a farce out of his campaign promises of a more peaceful foreign policy. Obama’s same, deceitful approach is used in South America, where he promised “non-intervention” and then proceeded to build military bases in Colombia on Venezuela’s border, while giving a green light to the coup in Honduras.

Hillary Clinton also threatened China about internet censorship last week, while Obama consciously provoked China by agreeing to talks with the Dalai Lama, who advocates the removal of Chinese influence from Tibet.

Still fresh in the memories of both the U.S. and China is the recent trade flair up, when Obama imposed taxes on Chinese imports; and China responded with protectionist measures against U.S. companies, which brings us to the heart of the matter.

The attitude of the U.S. government towards China has nothing to do with the Dalai Lama, internet censorship, or human rights. These excuses are used as diplomatic jabs in the framework of a larger, geopolitical brawl. Chinese corporations are expanding rapidly in the wake of the decline of the U.S. business class, and Obama is using a variety of measures to counteract this dynamic, with all roads leading to war.

This grand chessboard of corporate and military maneuvering reached a dangerous standoff yesterday, with the U.S. military provoking Iran. The New York Times explains:

“The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships [war ships] off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four [surrounding] Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.” (January 30, 2010).

The same article mentions that U.S. General Petraeus admitted that “… the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf [Iran’s border] at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles.” Iran knows full well that “antimissile systems” are perfectly capable of going on the offensive — their real purpose.

Iran is completely surrounded by countries occupied by the U.S. military, whether it be the mass occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the U.S. puppet states that house U.S. military bases in Arab nations. Contrary to the statements of President Obama, Iran is already well contained militarily. Iran’s government — however repressive it may be — has every right to defend itself in this context.

It is possible that these aggressive U.S. actions will eventually force Iran’s government to act out militarily, giving the U.S. military the “defensive” excuse it’s been waiting for, so the tempers of the U.S. population can be cooled.

A separate New York Times editorial outlines the basic agreement on Iran shared by the Democrats and the Republicans. It says:

“It is time for President Obama and other leaders to ratchet up the pressure with tougher sanctions.”

And:

“If the [UN] Security Council does not act quickly, then the United States and Europe must apply more pressure on their own [Bush's Iraq war strategy]. The Senate on Thursday approved a bill that would punish companies for exporting gasoline to Iran or helping Iran expand its own petroleum refining capability [another act of war]” (January 29, 2010).

The U.S. anti-war movement must organize and mobilize to confront the plans of the Obama administration. Obama’s policies not only mirror Bush’s, but have the potential to be far more devastating, with the real possibility of creating a wider, regional war. Iran and China are far more militarily capable than puny Afghanistan or Iraq; the consequences of a war with either will cause countless more deaths.

Bring All the Troops Home!

U.S. Military Out of the Middle East!

Depopulation by Government Edict

In 1922, Margaret Sanger wrote The Pivot of Civilization with an introduction by eugenicist H. G. Wells. The Rockefeller Foundation “enthusiastically supported the concept of ‘eugenics,’ which encourages the reproductive efforts of those deemed to have ‘good’ genes, while discouraging or stopping procreation by undesirables. But Rockefeller and others were anxious to go even further to mold America’s breeding patterns along evolutionary lines.” [1] John D. Rockefeller Jr., per the advice of Raymond B. Fosdick, provided financial backing for Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood movement. [2] Sanger, a feminist and birth control activist established the first family planning clinics in New York City. Several U.S. foundations financed eugenic research, including the Carnegie Institution, which funded Davenport’s eugenic studies at Cold Spring Harbor, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which gave grants in the 1930s for eugenic research at the Galton Laboratory at University College in London and to the Cornell Medical School in New York. [3] Advocates for population control and the study of eugenics include Theodore Roosevelt, Charles Wilson, president of Harvard and Irving Fisher, president of Yale and president of the Eugenics Research Association in the 1920s plus a host of other very public vocal figures. [4] President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court where he served from 1902 to 1932. Holmes was an advocate for selective breeding and issued the sterilization verdict in the case of Carrie Buck in 1927. He said, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” [5] Sir Frederick Pollock, a Pilgrims Society member and law professor at Oxford, was the editor of Law Quarterly Review from 1885 to 1919. He was in close communication with Harvard-educated Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. during a sixty-year period of time. Researcher Charles Savoie maintains that the Pilgrims Society was closely connected to America’s Supreme Court for more than a century. [6]

The Rockefeller Foundation financed what is known as Psychiatric Genetics, a new specialty. The Foundation restructured medical training in Germany including managing the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity under the direction of Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, supported by his trusty protégés, Otmar Verschuer and Dr. Franz J. Kallmann. In 1932, the British eugenics’ movement appointed Dr. Rudin as president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The eugenics movement promoted the killing or sterilization of burdensome people, individuals that Henry Kissinger referred to as “useless eaters.” [7] Rockefeller funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Eugenics Institute in Germany, founded in 1927.

The Bush family joined John D. Rockefeller and the British Royal Family in sponsoring the eugenics initiatives that gave rise to Hitler’s racial hygiene programs. Prescott Bush was later found guilty of trading with the Nazis during WWII. According to court records, the Rockefeller family and their Standard Oil Company supported Hitler more than they did the allies during the war. In fact, one judge declared Rockefeller guilty of treason. Dr. Gary Glum documented the insidious eugenics programs to create a “superior race,” which were initially sponsored not by Adolph Hitler, but by the American elite like the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Morgan, DuPont, Kellogg and Bush families. [8]

Hitler, who had been financed by international bankers, became Chancellor of the Third Reich on January 30, 1933. Wilhelm Frick, the minister of the interior, introduced the early sterilization law which was enacted within six months after Hitler was appointed chancellor. Sterilization was used for “life unworthy of life.” Certain individuals who reportedly warranted serialization included those with: “congenital feeblemindedness (now called mental deficiency), an estimated 200,000; manic depressive insanity, 20,000; schizophrenia, 80,000; epilepsy, 60,000; Huntington’s chorea (a hereditary brain disorder), 600; hereditary blindness, 4,000; hereditary deafness, 16,000; grave bodily malformation, 20,000; and hereditary alcoholism, 10,000. The projected total of 410,000 was considered only preliminary, drawn mostly from people already in institutions; it was assumed that much greater numbers of people would eventually be identified and sterilized.” [9]

After the Nazis took power, I.G. Farben and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil merged into a single entity which contained beneficial provisions for each company. I.G. Farben was, until 1937, controlled by the Warburg family who had collaborated with Rockefeller in crafting Nazi eugenics. Standard Oil maintained their alliance with I.G. Farben even after the U.S. entered the war. In 1940-41, I.G. Farben constructed a large industrial complex in Poland adjacent the Auschwitz concentration camp where they planned to use slave labor to make gasoline from coal. Standard-Germany president Emil Helfferich admitted that Standard Oil financed part of the operations at Auschwitz. [10]

In the fall of 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson contacted Dr. Frank B. Jewett, president of the National Academy of Sciences, to discuss the further development of biological warfare. This was prior to America’s entry into World War II, but according to his diary Secretary Stimson was well aware of imminent events. Shortly afterwards, President Roosevelt authorized Stimson to create a civilian agency to supervise biological warfare under the jurisdiction of the Federal Security Agency. George Merck, owner of Merck Pharmaceutical and close adviser to Roosevelt, was appointed director of the new War Research Service. [11]

Frank McDougall participated in the area of public health within the old League of Nations. He made the connection between community health, nutrition, and agricultural development and economic policy. The U.N., in a conference in Hot Springs between October 16 and November 1, 1945, formulated the U.N. Interim Commission on Food and Agriculture. Officials drafted the constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). McDougall was a chief architect and promoter of the organization. [12]

The Bureau of Human Heredity relocated from London to Copenhagen in 1947 where they moved into a newly constructed building paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation. The initial International Congress in Human Genetics after World War II was convened in Copenhagen in 1956. Verschuer, Rudin’s protégé, was by then a member of the American Eugenics Society, synonymous with Rockefeller’s Population Council. Dr. Kallmann, a director, also organized the American Society of Human Genetics which directed the Human Genome Project. Later, the Rockefellers relocated the U.S. eugenics movement to their family offices where they also controlled future population control and abortion advocacy groups. The Eugenics Society later became the Society for the Study of Social Biology. [13]

U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948, headed by George F. Kennan, concluded, “We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” [14]

John Foster Dulles, then chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, concluded after observations acquired on a number of tours abroad that there was a “need to stop the expansion of the non-white populations.” In 1952, Frederick Osborn, an officer of the American Eugenics Society, assisted John D. Rockefeller III in organizing the Population Council and served as its first administrator. In 1958, Eisenhower selected William H. Draper to head a committee to evaluate appropriate military actions in other countries. Draper suggested that a better focus should be the threat of population explosion and a study on depopulation procedures for poorer non-white countries that pose a national security threat to the U.S. [15] Apparently, a burgeoning non-white population might reduce available resources that would be put to better use by white populations. Additionally, growing populations produce resentful individuals who aggressively oppose elitist policies.

In 1965, the Population Action International (originally known as the Population Crisis Committee), was founded by Hugh Moore, Lammot du Pont Copeland and William H. Draper Jr. The worldwide organization is headquartered in Washington, DC. Since 2001, in conjunction with the Population Action International, and with the encouragement of Congress, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) distributes information in foreign countries in an effort to initiate family planning and cover other reproductive health programs.

In 1961, John D. Rockefeller III presented the Second McDougall Lecture to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. This predated by a decade Rockefeller’s population protocols that would become part of Kissinger’s NSSM 200. Rockefeller, in his address, said, “To my mind, population growth is second only to control of atomic weapons as the paramount problem of the day.” [16]

The Rockefeller Foundation funded England’s eugenics movement. The Rockefeller family had early ties to the House of Rothschild to which the gigantic Standard oil trust owed its beginnings. Presumably, the Rothschilds, a Talmudic family with early Masonic and Illuminati connections, actively promoted and financed eugenics and depopulation behind the scenes. By the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England embraced Crypto-eugenics, under which they would participate in eugenics without actually calling it eugenics. The Rockefellers lent their support to England’s Eugenics Society by establishing the International Planned Parenthood Federation, in conjunction with the Eugenics Society. This formed a private, global system in which the elite could choreograph an international holocaust, within the context of offering humanitarian services, all under the jurisdiction of the U.N. flag, another Rockefeller front organization. [17]

George H. W. Bush of Texas, who served in Congress from January 3, 1967 to January 3, 1971, originated a legislative investigation of world overpopulation. [18] Dr. D. M. MacArthur, Deputy Director of Research & Technology for the Pentagon, Department of Defense, requested $10 million from the Congressional House Subcommittee on Appropriations to develop a biological weapon through House Bill 15090. On June 9, 1969, the House Republican research task committee, chaired by George H. W. Bush, heard testimony from General William H. Draper, of the Population Crisis Committee and Dr. William Moran of the Population Reference Bureau. Draper reported that there were three issues relevant to population control – the census of 1970 in the U.S. and of 1971 in Britain should be worldwide and not limited to two countries, accelerating contraception, and the World Health Organization should implement their international programs such as inoculations, etc. [19] Leading World Health Organization scientists, as noted in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, had requested that viruses be created in order to study their affects on humans.

The Department of Defense, now funded with $10 million, intended to conduct studies on immune-system-destroying agents for biological warfare. In 1983 Dr. Robert Strecker, an internist and gastro-enterologist who is also a trained pathologist with a Ph.D. in pharmacology, produced The Strecker Memorandum wherein he claims that the AIDS virus is man-made. Working in conjunction with his brother, attorney Ted Strecker, they discovered thousands of documents verifying the man-made origin of AIDS. Strecker maintains that it was virologically impossible for HIV to have emanated from monkeys; the disease was unknown in Africa before 1975. Strecker claims that the World Health Organization (WHO), funded by the Department of Defense, initiated testing on a lymphotrophic virus, a bovine virus that could also infect humans. In 1977, the WHO instigated a massive campaign in Africa to eradicate smallpox among the urban population. Over 100 million Africans were deliberately inoculated with AIDS-contaminated smallpox vaccine. In 1978, over 2,000 white male homosexuals were inoculated against hepatitis B by the Centers for Disease Control and the New York Blood Center, also with AIDS-contaminated vaccine. [20] Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD) funded the hepatitis B vaccine research that Dr. Strecker claimed spread HIV to homosexuals in the U.S. [21] These kinds of weapons were apparently a viable concern immediately after 9/11 as John Bolton gave an address at the Biological Weapons Convention on November 19, 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland, stating our concerns about “terrorists” using biological and chemical weapons. [22] We have trained many foreigners in the use of biological and chemical weapons at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize after he directed the dispersion of tons of Monsanto’s toxic Agent Orange in Vietnam. This chemical, containing dioxin, continues to negatively affect Vietnamese citizens and former U.S. military personnel and their children with horrendous birth defects and neurological disorders. Conversely, Ali Hassan al-Majid, who dispersed chemicals in Halabja, was recently executed for the same activities. Kissinger orchestrated the precedent-setting secret bombing of neutral Cambodia over a four-year period, allegedly to protect Americans in Vietnam. From 1970 onward, Congress had prohibited bombing in Cambodia in every military appropriations bill except for that open-ended purpose – protecting U.S. citizens – but apparently not from Agent Orange. [23] According to Time magazine of April 19, 1976, “Since the Communist victory last year, an estimated 500,000 to 600,000 people, one-tenth of Cambodia’s population, have died from political reprisals, disease or starvation . . . To escape the bloodbath; at least 25,000 Cambodians have fled across the border into Thailand. They tell tales of people being clubbed to death to save ammunition. Others have been bound together and buried alive by bulldozers, or suffocated by having plastic bags tied over their heads.” [24]

Generating further resentment, the U.S. installed Lon Nol, who collected millions of dollars in U.S. economic aid. He declared himself Chief of State, Prime Minister and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces after he disbanded the Assembly in October 1971 in order to declare emergency rule. He then permitted the U.S. to carpet bomb Cambodia. [25] Lon Nol retired to Hawaii on April 1, 1975 with half a million dollars, compliments of the U.S. taxpayers. [26] Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge with its killing fields, the essential liquidation of the middle class, famine, the destruction of the economy and concentration camps followed America’s activities in the area.

From Kissinger’s Indochina bio warfare experiments, President Richard Nixon commissioned Kissinger to direct the compilation of a National Security Council population policy. The work was completed during President Gerald Ford’s administration. Their efforts resulted in The National Security Study Memorandum, NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, dated December 10, 1974. It was officially adopted as U.S. policy on November 26, 1975, with Memorandum 314 by President Ford. It is still in effect, as it has never been rescinded. Each succeeding administration implements the population policies using its own methodology. The NSSM 200 was declassified on February 8, 2007.

Population control serves the U.S. strategic, economic, and military interests at the expense of the developing Third World or Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs). The plan claims that their population growth is detrimental and a grave threat to U.S. national security in four ways: (1) large nations may gain political power (2) The U.S. and its allies need the strategic materials from those countries. (3) A high birth rate means more young people who are more likely than older people to challenge global power structures (4) Population growth in relatively disadvantaged countries jeopardizes U.S. investments. [27]

NSSM 200 has special implications for thirteen countries – India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia. NSSM 200 listed Brazil which, at that time, had a population of over 100 million which dominated the continent demographically. By 2000, the population projections totaled about 212 million people. [28] That kind of population growth was unacceptable to the elite.

In 1975, Kissinger traveled with Gerald Ford to Indonesia, where they met with the U.S.-backed and armed dictator Suharto, who oversaw the killing of millions during his 35-year reign. The day after Ford and Kissinger left, Indonesian forces invaded the independent territory of East Timor. One-third of the territory’s population was exterminated during the subsequent 20-year occupation, but this had little impact on continuing American and Western arms shipments to the regime in Jakarta. Recently released documents establish that Suharto received a green light for the invasion from the U.S. President and Secretary of State.

Nixon and Kissinger, along with John Negroponte, a Kissinger aide and the officer in charge of Vietnam on the National Security Council, arranged a chaos-creating government coup in Cambodia in March 1970. Negroponte would later act as Ambassador to Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and as director of national intelligence from 2005 to 2007. On March 26, 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported, “While ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85, Negroponte directed the secret arming of Nicaragua’s Contra rebels and is accused by human rights groups of overlooking—if not overseeing—a CIA-backed Honduran death squad during his tenure.” The CIA had unlimited funds to assist the government in its depopulation efforts. In concert with Oliver North, “He also helped orchestrate a secret deal, later known as Iran-Contra, to send arms through Honduras to help the Contras overthrow the Sandinista government.” [29] Negroponte had charge of the US Embassy in Honduras when hundreds of Hondurans labeled as “subversives” were seized, raped, tortured and slaughtered by Battalion 316, a Honduran intelligence unit trained, funded and supported by the Pentagon and the CIA. Battalion 316 also participated in the CIA’s covert operations in Nicaragua. [30] Negroponte was Deputy Secretary of State under Condoleezza Rice.

On October 2, 1979, Robert S. McNamara, president of the World Bank and former secretary of defense during the Vietnam War, in speaking to a group of international bankers said, “We can begin with the most critical problem of all, population growth,” concluding that, “Either the current birth rates must come down more quickly, or the death rates must go up…There are, of course, many ways in which the death rates can go up. In a thermonuclear age, we can accomplish it very quickly and decisively.” It is a surprising statement in view of the crypto-eugenic position taken by the American Eugenics Society, a stand which McNamara, evidently a dedicated eugenicist, would have certainly been aware of. It can only be assumed that he did not agree with the society’s stand, and was arrogant enough to ignore it.” [31] McNamara and Maurice Strong, a Rockefeller operative and ecological agitator, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. [32] The New York Times claimed that Strong was the “Custodian of the Planet.” Strong is indebted to George H. W. Bush who maneuvered Strong into the position of Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, the Earth Summit, convened in Rio de Janeiro, which elevated global economic and environmental regulations. [33] Strong thinks that people should be required to have a license in order to have a baby.

The Population Plan was initially implemented by Brent Scowcroft, a long-time Kissinger colleague and Vice-Chairman of Kissinger Associates and National Security Advisor under Ford from 1974–1977 and George H. W. Bush from 1989–1993. CIA Director George H. W. Bush (November 1975 to January 1977) assisted Scowcroft who co-authored A World Transformed with George H. W. Bush. In addition to the National Security Advisor, the Secretaries of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, and Agriculture are responsible for executing the population plan. Each administration uses those agencies and determines its own strategy for depopulating the planet. Scowcroft was President George W. Bush’s Chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2005 and also assisted President Barrack Obama in selecting his national security team. Scowcroft apparently facilitated Obama’s efforts to continue Bush’s warfare depopulating strategy in the Middle East.

In 1974 the United Nations convened the World Food Conference in Rome where they focused on two issues, as suggested by the U.S. The first topic was worldwide population growth and food shortages. The second agenda item was escalating food prices as a consequence of an allegedly decreasing world food supply. Both oil and grain prices were increasing at about 300 to 400 percent annually. A supposed food crisis coupled with America’s capacity as the world’s biggest food producer placed the U.S. government in charge of food and prices resulting in an alliance between grain traders and the U.S. government which lead to genetic tampering. [34]

The Reagan Administration accommodated Monsanto and other private companies who manufactured questionably safe food products designed for worldwide trade. Genetically modified (GMO) products, with little or no testing, were introduced in the U.S. market. Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, former CIA Director, was the chief proponent within the Reagan Administration for this innovative field of genetically modified products. [35] U.S. citizens were intentionally vulnerable, as GMO labeling had been forbidden by the FDA. [36] Monsanto’s expensive, elite Terminator seeds, fertile only for one planting, “in the hands of one or more governments intent on using food as a weapon, Terminator was a tool of biological warfare almost ‘too good to believe.’” [37] Given that so many third world countries are managed according to Anglo-American eugenics interests, Terminator seeds provide ample opportunity for tyrants to stage famines.

During the 1960s and 1970s the indigenous non-white population of the U.S., through the Indian Health Service of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, operated an methodical lost generation program against Native American women of childbearing age wherein they sterilized about forty-two percent of those living on reservations without informing them. This was accomplished in conjunction with other medical procedures. Allegedly, this program was terminated in 1976 after allegations were made and confirmed. No officials lost their jobs or suffered judicial consequences as a result of implementing of participating in this program. They were, after all, simply following government procedures as it pertained to domestic non-white populations. [38]

More recently, in the 1990s, the World Health Organization dispensed tetanus shots among women between the ages of fifteen and forty-five in Nicaragua, Mexico, the Philippines and some African countries. Unknown to the women, the tetanus shots were laced with Chorionic Gonadotrophin or (hCG), a natural hormone, which, when combined with tetanus toxoid, prevents a women from sustaining a pregnancy. This program, to impose a state of permanent sterilization, was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and began in 1972.

Sterilization is incredibly appalling but it does not stop there. The depopulation efforts, conducted by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Defense, include more aggressive protocols. The British military, whose tactics we have frequently adopted, first used biological warfare as early as 1385 when they tossed the remains of plague victims and diseased animal carcasses into their enemy’s towns. In North America, Lord Jeffrey Amherst had his men distribute smallpox-laden blankets among the vulnerable Indian population in order to decimate their enemy without firing a bullet.

Amherst’s tactics created an epidemic among the Cherokees in 1783 which helped George Washington’s forces and ended the Cherokee’s resistance. The Masonic-based Smithsonian Institution has acknowledged Amherst’s use of biological warfare, “During the bitter fighting in 1763-1764 General Jeffrey Amherst ordered that the Indians around Fort Pitt be infected with gifts of smallpox (laden) blankets. The Indian uprising failed, and Fort Pitt was easily relieved after a smallpox epidemic broke out among the warriors besieging the fort.” [39] The U.S. Army repeated Amherst’s biological warfare tactics by distributing smallpox-infected blankets to the Mandans at Fort Clark in present day South Dakota. This led to the smallpox epidemic of 1836-40. The Mandan, out of about 2,400 there were only thirty-one survivors. [40] The U.S. Army repeated this deadly tactic by introducing blankets laden with the same disease to the Missouri River Mandans during the 1830s.

Biological warfare became U.S. government policy after the British used it against France’s Indian allies during the French and Indian Wars (1754–63). Accordingly, during the 19th century, the U.S. Army disseminated contaminated blankets to the Indians for extermination purposes. Smallpox, now available in a dry state, and cholera were very effective. [41] Quite possibly, smallpox, a highly contagious disease, had claimed the lives of more Northern Plains Indians, a “virgin population,” in one year, 1837-1838, than all the military expeditions sent against them. The Indians used a very descriptive name for smallpox – rotting face. [42] The U.S. military also conducted germ warfare by injecting Filipino captives with plague and beriberi germs during our occupation of the Philippines beginning in 1898.

In 1998, in South Africa at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission the following testimony was given, “The United States encouraged South Africa’s apartheid regime to develop a Chemical Biological Weapons program that was aimed at the country’s black population. Dr. Wouter Basson, the South African general who headed the project from its inception in 1981, testified from notes he made of a meeting with US Major General William Augerson. He (Augerson) feels that chemical warfare is an ideal strategic weapon because infrastructure is preserved together with facilities and only living people are killed. The warm climate of Africa is ideal for this type of weapon because the diffusion of the poison is better and the absorption is increased by perspiration and increased blood flow in the persons who are targets.” [43]

Genocidal war is about body counts – un-armed men, women and children are all total war targets to fulfill the objective of world population reduction. However, war destroys a lot of infrastructure. Accordingly, other methods were developed that are equally effective and might even increase profits in other service industries, also affiliated with the elite who consistently view other humans as sources of profit or commodities, even in death. Genocide, under other pretenses, is regularly practiced to limit “excesses” in order to preserve the earth and its resources for the “fittest.” Elite-controlled governments are indifferent to the slaughter, starvation, slave labor, and suffering of others, as evidenced by a callous response from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when questioned about the 500,000 children who died in Iraq as a result of the U.S.-imposed sanctions. She said, “It was worth it.” [44]

The Malthusian-mentality elite believe in the survival of the fittest rendering the vast majority of the earth’s population as expendable. Choreographed economic crisis, sanctions (government-imposed famines), man-made famines, wars, directed energy warfare, diseases, and mass migrations into hostile territory are all methods of thinning out the population. Abortion, peddled as pro-choice, and homosexuality, promoted as an alternative life style, all contribute to birth reduction rates. Both Alfred Kinsey’s sexual revolution and Gloria Steinem’s women’s movement were funded and facilitated by the elite. The greedy elite manage to conceal their miserable machinations by distracting the masses with mindless entertainment and addictive substances from which they also derive profits.

Many Americans think that God sanctions our every action against other ethnic groups just because we are American. God almost certainly does not sanction everything that the U.S. government does. In reality, the fallacious claim of divine sanction cloaks the enormity of state-sanctioned wickedness. The U.S. could and should use its power for good. Apparently, we establish our own ethical standards, totally exempt from all culpability and, according to Henry Kissinger, our behavior should not be internationalized. In other words, we condone and even support unilateral attacks on other countries but other countries may not act in the same manner. The children of every country should have the same rights and protections as white American children. [45]

[1] Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences , the Red Queen and the Grand Scheme by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., Institute for Media Education, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998, p. 202

[2] The Proud Internationalist, the Globalist Vision of David Rockefeller, also available in Nexus Magazine: Vol. 10, No. 5 (August-September 2003); Vol. 20 No.6 (October-November 2003); & Vol. 11 No.1 (December 2003-January

2004); 2006, p. 38

[3] Eugenics: A Reassessment by Richard Lynn, edited by Seymour W. Itzkoff, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, 2001, p. 27

[4] Ibid

[5] War Against the Weak, Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 2003, pp. 120-122

[6] Pilgrims by Charles Savoie, Silver Investor, May 2005,

www.silver-investor.com/charlessavoie/cs_may05_pilgrims.htm

[7] Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html

[8] American Bar Association, http://www.healthfreedom.info/BAR%20Association.htm

[9] The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton, Basic Books, New York, 2000, p. 25

[10] Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html

[11] Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola, Nature, Accident or Intentional? by Leonard G. Horowitz, Tetrahedron, Inc. Rockport, Massachusetts, 1996, pp. 38, 40-41

[12] FAO Conference 31st session: Twenty-second McDougall Memorial Lecture, Rome, November 2-13, 2001, http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/004/Y2255e.htm

[13] Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html

[14] U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/Nsc68.pdf

[15] Bush, Eugenics and Population Control by Alf Mendes, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/344113.html

[16] Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2007, p. 71

[17] Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html

[18] Emerging Viruses, Aids & Ebola, Nature, Accident or Intentional? By Leonard G. Horowitz, Tetrahedron Publishing, Inc., Rockport, Massachusetts, 1996, p. 521

[19] Ibid, pp. 156, 159

[20] Ibid, pp. 3-5

[21] Ibid, p. 12

[22] Biological Weapons Convention, http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/janjuly/6231.htm

[23] Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979, p. 277

[24] Kissinger, the Secret Side of the Secretary of State by Gary Allen, Shambhala Publications, 1979, p. 14

[25] Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979, p. 229

[26] Ibid, pp. 357-358

[27] National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth, For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM 200) – December 10, 1974, pp. 57-58

[28] National Security Study Memorandum, NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth, For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, (The Kissinger Report), December 10, 1974, p. 31

[29] Bush UN Choice Faces a Fight By Maggie Farley and Norman Kempster, Los Angeles Times, March 26, 2001

[30] John Negroponte & The Death-Squad Connection, Bush Nominates Terrorist for National Intelligence Director by Frank Morales, World War 4 Report, http://www.ww4report.com/negropontedeathsquad

[31] Bush, Eugenics and Population Control by Alf Mendes, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/344113.html

[32] Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Montreal, Canada, 2007, p. 127

[33] Who is Maurice Strong? by Ronald Bailey, National Review, Sept 1, 1997

[34] Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2007, p. 43

[35] Ibid, p. 4

[36] Ibid, p. 13

[37] Ibid, p. 261

[38] A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present by Ward Churchill, City Lights Books, San Francisco, p. 249

[39] The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance edited by M. Annette Jaimes, South End Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1992, p. 7 Jaimes Notes: Jacobs, Wilbur R., “British Indian Policies to 1783,” in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 4: History of Indian-White Relations, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1988, p. 10). As regards inculcation of smallpox among the Mandans in 1837, see Connell, Evan S., Son of the Morning Star: Custer and the Little Big Horn, North Point Press, San Francisco, 1984, pp. 15-6.

[40] Catlin and His Contemporaries: The Politics of Patronage by Brian W. Dippie, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1990, p. 331

[41] Death Stalks the Yakama: Epidemiological Transitions and Mortality on the Yakama Indian Reservation, 1888-1964 by Clifford E. Trafzer, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan, 1997, p. 151

[42] Rotting face : smallpox and the American Indian by R. G. Robertson, Caxton Press, 2001, Introduction, pp. 107-113

[43] Rogue State, a Guide to the World’s Only Superpower by William Blum, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, 2005, pp. 120-121

[44] “We Think the Price Is Worth It” By Rahul Mahajan, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

[45] Howard Zinn in his lecture: Howard Zinn: The Myth of American Exceptionalism, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8632.htm

Obama and Iran’s Opposition

By Mark Vorpahl

On the weekend of December 26 – 27, the Iranian regime saw the greatest threat to its survival to date as possibly millions flooded the streets across the nation to express their opposition to the government, facing off with the regime’s notoriously repressive security apparatus. From his holiday retreat in Hawaii, President Obama saw fit to make the following statements:

“The United States joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens, which has apparently resulted in detentions, injuries, and even death.” “For months, the Iranian people have sought nothing more than to exercise their universal rights. Each time they have done so, they have been met with the iron fist of brutality, even on solemn occasions and holy days.” Obama called on Iran to respect human rights and release “all who have been unjustly detained within Iran.”

Such fine words are meant, in part, to reassure U.S. workers that their basic sense of justice and decency are reflected in the Presidency. Like any commodity, Obama’s appeal is marketed in a way to make people who have bought into it feel better about themselves and the world. However, given his record while in office, his claims bear no more legitimacy than the accounting practices of the banks and insurance companies Obama helped to bail out.

There is a clear contradiction between Obama’s projected image as a beacon of hope and change and his administration’s actions. This is clear on many fronts in both domestic and foreign policy. There is one example that is especially pertinent for understanding what is likely to transpire in regards to Obama’s attitude towards Iran’s Opposition Movement.

Honduras

In June, there was a military coup in Honduras that overthrew the democratically elected President Zelaya. Obama initially condemned the action. In Honduras a tidal wave of popular outrage against the coup defied its brutality, arrests, and assassinations for months on end in scenes similar to what we are seeing in Iran today. Nevertheless, the Obama administration did nothing to oppose the coup, which would have been within its legal rights to do, according to international law. U.S. taxpayers’ money still poured in to support the illegal government through a variety of channels, and there was no effort made to cut off political relations. In fact, the Obama administration worked with the coup makers, even while they were murdering Honduran unionists, in an attempt to find a “diplomatic solution” that would render Zelaya politically powerless.

Today, the U.S. is one of the few countries recognizing the results of the elections that were engineered by the coup makers, with advice from the U.S., to provide a democratic veneer to their dictatorship. The Obama administration has consciously conducted itself in this manner against the wishes of the Honduran popular movement, which boycotted the illegitimate elections by up to 65 percent, and against the wishes of the vast majority of Latin American nations. Consequently, a regime that is every bit as brutal and undemocratic as the one in Iran, if not more so, is now viewed as legitimate by the Obama administration.

As treacherous as the Obama administration’s actions were towards the Honduran people, they were in equal measure crafty and loyal towards the interests of whom the Presidency is sworn to really represent, regardless of whether it is occupied by a Democrat or a Republican – that is, the interests of the big business which care more about making big profits from super exploited Honduran workers then they do for democracy and human rights.

Of course, Iran is not Honduras. There are different geo-political and economic concerns in regards to U.S. relations. These will require different tactics for the U.S. to achieve its goals. The only certain commonality is that these goals will stand in opposition to the needs and aspirations of each country’s working class and poor, including workers in the U.S.

U.S. relations with Iran

One difference is that currently the U.S. is at odds with the regime in Iran, whereas in Honduras, the Obama administration had been meeting with the coup makers over how to politically weaken Zelaya even before the Honduran oligarchs decided to kidnap him and set up their own government. Oil-rich Iran has grown too politically independent for the U.S.’s liking. They have become competitors for political influence in the region and, to a limited but significant degree, business rivals for U.S. corporations throughout much of the world. Consequently, the U.S.’s ability to maintain its control over the Middle East as a source of cheap oil, cheap labor, and super profits has been challenged. This is the main motivation behind the U.S.’s bluster over Iran’s alleged nuclear capacity and its human rights record.

The U.S. is actively pursuing regime change in Iran. Using this as a justification, the current Iran regime has characterized the massive protests as a product of U.S. imperialist meddling. As preposterous as this is, given the broad-based scope of the protests, unfortunately some on the left have adopted this viewpoint in a confused effort to appear consistently as opposing U.S. imperialist machinations. In doing so, however, they tend to dismiss the deep discontent that exists among working people in Iran, the enormous potential of the opposition’s base to play a revolutionary role, and most importantly, the methods of Obama’s imperialist policy that seeks regime change at the expense of any such popular movement.

The Revolutionary Process Begins

The Iranian people have been suffering from a declining standard of living, brutal measures to put down strikes, diminishing opportunities for youth, the repression of women, and the increasing inability of the real powers in Iran to even symbolically address these issues by using democratic methods. Today’s upsurge of popular protest was not only inevitable, it was predictable.

Currently, the protests are aimed at achieving relatively modest democratic reforms. However, when confronted with the regime’s absolute refusal to do so, there has developed a process of ever deepening radicalization. When the popular upsurge first was sparked back in June by the flagrant electoral fraud that resulted in Ahmadinejad’s re-election, the main chant of the protesters was for their vote to be counted. In last weekend’s protests the chant was “death to the dictator” referring to Cleric Ahmad Khatami, who is the real power behind the Iranian regime. Police stations were burned down and there were even examples of police refusing to repress the protests.

All this demonstrates that even the struggle for modest democratic reforms in Iran compel the mass working class base of the opposition towards an increasingly radical and potentially revolutionary direction. This potential can lead to a confrontation with the systematic source of the Iranian peoples’ discontent, that is, the capitalist economic system. For this confrontation to result in a revolutionary victory, it will require a conscious working class leadership that seeks to replace capitalism with socialism which can then guarantee the running of society by the vast majority of the population.

There is currently no such leadership for the popular opposition. Former Presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, whose defeat as a result of electoral fraud sparked the initial upsurge last June, is the de facto leadership at the moment. However, the opposition movement often mobilizes against his wishes, indicating that his leadership role can be very limited.

Mousavi is a long time member of Iran’s political elite which has come into conflict with the hardliners over how best to deal with the regime’s growing difficulties and prevent a revolution. While he has displayed courage, his political outlook is an obstacle in the path of the Iranian people toward realizing their needs and aspirations.

For instance, after the murder of his nephew and threats to his life, Mousavi stated he was not afraid to die for the opposition’s cause. However, he followed this up with a proposal that “the government announce it will be directly accountable before the nation, parliament, and the judiciary and not demand unconditional support regardless of its shortcomings or weakness.” This is not only a far cry from the peoples’ call of “death to the dictator,” it is the exact opposite. It is a proposal aimed at continuing the regime by adopting a more flexible approach to deal with the opposition. Given the depth of the capitalist crisis in Iran, the inability of the regime to solve it and the fighting mood of Iran’s working and lower classes, even if the regime were to adopt Mousavi’s proposal, it would almost immediately be thrown into the same impossible predicament it finds itself in today.

The U.S. Dilemma

While the U.S. may have initially supported some sectors of the opposition who they hoped would follow Mousavi’s lead, the mass movement that has erupted across Iran is their greatest nightmare. Not only does this movement have the potential to topple the Iran regime, it has the potential of defeating U.S. plans as well. The Obama administration is being forced to walk a narrow path between its aims to put a more compliant regime in Iran and navigating away from the threat of a militant popular movement which will put the needs of the vast majority first rather than the domestic and foreign capitalist interests.

Obama’s fine words regarding the protests on December 26-27 cannot be taken at face value. They are an attempt to cover up an inevitable betrayal.

At this point, the Obama administration appears to be committed to pursuing economic sanctions against Iran and possibly air strikes. Whatever is done, it will be accompanied by attempts to demobilize and disorganize the mass base of the opposition so that this movement will not interfere with U.S. intentions. For all genuine supporters of the revolutionary movement in Iran, their tasks are to promote international solidarity with it and demand that the U.S. keep its hands off Iran.

Obama Is Preparing for War in South America

Interview with Eva Golinger…

1 Mike Whitney—-The US media is very critical of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He’s frequently denounced as “anti-American”, a “leftist strongman”, and a dictator. Can you briefly summarize some of the positive social, economic and judicial changes for which Chavez is mainly responsible?

Eva Golinger—-The first and foremost important achievement during the Chávez administration is the 1999 Constitution, which, although not written nor decreed by Chávez himself, was created through his vision of change for Venezuela. The 1999 Constitution was, in fact, drafted – written – by the people of Venezuela in one of the most participatory examples of nation building, and then was ratified through popular national referendum by 75% of Venezuelans. The 1999 Constitution is one of the most advanced in the world in the area of human rights. It guarantees the rights to housing, education, healthcare, food, indigenous lands, languages, women’s rights, worker’s rights, living wages and a whole host of other rights that few other countries recognize on a national level. My favorite right in the Venezuelan Constitution is the right to a dignified life. That pretty much sums up all the others. Laws to implement these rights began to surface in 2001, with land reform, oil industry redistribution, tax laws and the creation of more than a dozen social programs – called missions – dedicated to addressing the basic needs of Venezuela’s poor majority. In 2003, the first missions were directed at education and healthcare. Within two years, illiteracy was eradicated in the country and Venezuela was certified by UNESCO as a nation free of illiteracy. This was done with the help of a successful Cuban literacy program called “Yo si puedo” (Yes I can). Further educational missions were created to provide free universal education from primary to doctoral levels throughout the country. Today, Venezuela’s population is much more educated than before, and adults who previously had no high school education now are encouraged to not only go through a secondary school program, but also university and graduate school.

The healthcare program, called “Barrio Adentro”, has not only provided preventive healthcare to all Venezuelans – many who never had access to a doctor before – but also has guaranteed universal, free access to medical attention at the most advanced levels. MRIs, heart surgery, lab work, cancer treatments, are all provided free of cost to anyone (including foreigners) in need. Some of the most modern clinics, diagnostic treatment centers and hospitals have been built in the past five years under this program, placing Venezuela at the forefront of medical technology.

Other programs providing subsidized food and consumer products (Mercal, Pdval), job training (Mission Vuelvan Caras), subsidies to poor, single mothers (Madres del Barrio), attention to indigents and drug addicts (Mission Negra Hipolita) have reduced extreme poverty by 50% and raised Venezuelans standard of living and quality of life. While nothing is perfect, these changes are extraordinary and have transformed Venezuela into a nation far different from what it looked like 10 years ago. In fact, the most important achievement that Hugo Chávez himself is directly responsible for is the level of participation in the political process. Today, millions of Venezuelans previously invisible and excluded are visible and included. Those who were always marginalized and ignored in Venezuela by prior governments today have a voice, are seen and heard, and are actively participating in the building of a new economic, political and social model in their country.

2 MW—On Monday, President Chavez threw a Venezuelan judge in jail on charges of abuse of power for freeing a high-profile banker. Do you think he overstepped his authority as executive or violated the principle of separation of powers? What does this say about Chavez’s resolve to fight corruption?

Eva Golinger—-President Chávez did not put anyone in jail. Venezuela has an Attorney General and an independent branch of government in charge of public prosecutions. Chávez did publicly accuse the judge of corruption and violating the law because that judge overstepped her authority by releasing an individual charged with corruption and other criminal acts from detention, despite the fact that a previous court had not granted conditional freedom or bail to the suspect. And, the judge released the suspect in a very irregular way, without the presence of the prosecutor, and through a back door. The suspect then fled the country.

This is part of Venezuela’s fight against corruption. Unfortunately – as in a lot of countries – corruption is deeply rooted in the culture. The struggle to eradicate corruption is probably the most difficult of all and will probably not be achieved until new generations have grown up with different values and education. In the meantime, the Chávez administration is trying hard to ensure that corrupt public officials pay the consequences. That judge, for example, engaged in an act of corruption and abuse of authority by illegally releasing a suspect and therefore was charged by the Public Prosecutor’s office and will be tried. It has nothing to do with what Chávez said or didn’t say, it has to do with enforcing the law.

3 MW—Why is the United States building military bases in Colombia? Do they pose a threat to Chavez or the Bolivarian Revolution?

Eva Golinger—-On October 30th, the US formally entered into an agreement with the Colombian government to allow US access to seven military bases in Colombia and unlimited use of Colombian territory for military operations. The agreement itself is purported to be directed at counter-narcotics operations and counter-terrorism. But a US Air Force document released earlier this year discussing the need for a stronger US military presence in Colombia revealed the true intentions behind the military agreement. The document stated that the US military presence was necessary to combat the “constant threat from anti-US governments in the region”. Clearly, that is a reference to Venezuela, and probably Bolivia, maybe Ecuador. It’s no secret that Washington considers the Venezuelan government anti-US, though it’s not true. Venezuela is anti-imperialist, but not anti-US. The US Air Force document also stated that the Colombian bases would be used to engage in “full spectrum military operations” throughout South America, and even talked about surveillance, intelligence and reconnaisance missions, and improving the capacity of US forces to execute “expeditionary warfare” in Latin America.

Clearly, this is a threat to the peoples of Latin America and particularly those nations targeted, such as Venezuela. Most people in the US don’t know about this military agreement, but it they did, they should question why their government, led by Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama, is preparing for war in South America. And, in the midst of an economic crisis with millions of people in the US losing jobs and homes, why are millions of dollars being spent on military bases in Colombia? The US Congress already approved $46 million for one of the bases in Colombia. And surely more funds will be supplied in the future.

4 MW—What is ALBA? Is it a viable alternative to the “free trade” blocs promoted by the US?

Eva Golinger—-The Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas – Trade Agreement for the People, is a regional agreement created five years ago between Venezuela and Cuba, and now has 9 members: Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Dominica. ALBA is a trade agreement based on integration, cooperation and solidarity, contrary to US trade agreements which are based on competition and exploitation. It promotes a way of trading between nations that assures mutual benefits. For example, Venezuela sells oil to Cuba and Cuba pays with services – doctors, educators and technological experts that help to improve Venezuela’s industries. Venezuela sells oil to Nicaragua and Nicaragua pays with food products, agricultural technology and aide to build Venezuela’s own agricultural industry, which long ago was abandoned by prior governments only interested in the rich oil industry. ALBA seeks to not just provide economic benefits to its member nations, but also social and cultural advances. The idea is to find ways to help members develop and progress in all aspects of society. ALBA recently created a new currency, the SUCRE, which will be used as a form of exchange between member nations, eliminating the US dollar as the standard for trade.

5 MW—Are US NGO’s and intelligence agents still trying to foment political instability in Venezuela or have those operations ceased since the failed coup?

Eva Golinger—-In fact, the funding of political groups in Venezuela, and others throughout Latin America that promote US agenda, has increased since the April 2002 coup against President Chávez. Through two principal Department of State agencies, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US government has channeled more than $50 million to opposition groups in Venezuela since 2002. The USAID/NED budget to fund groups in Venezuela in 2010 is nearly $15 million, doubled from last year’s $7 million. This is a state policy of Washington, which the Obama Administration plans to amp up. They call it “democracy promotion”, but it’s really democracy subversion and destabilization. Funding political groups favorable to Empire, equipping them with resources, strategizing to help formulate political platforms and campaigns – all geared towards regime change – is a new form of invasion, a silent invasion. Through USAID and NED, and their “partner NGOs” and contractors, such as Freedom House, International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, Pan-American Development Foundation and Development Alternatives, Inc., hundreds of political groups, parties and programs are presently being funded in Venezuela to promote regime change against the Chávez government. US taxpayer dollars are being squandered on these efforts to overthrow a democratically elected government that simply isn’t convenient for Washington. Remember, Venezuela has 24% of world oil reserves. That’s a lot!

6 MW—How hard has Venezuela been hit by the economic crisis? Do the people understand Wall Street’s role in the meltdown?

Eva Golinger—-Actually, the Chávez government has taken important steps to shelter Venezuela from the financial crisis. People here in Venezuela absolutely understand Wall Street’s role in the crisis and know that the US capitalist-consumerist system is principally responsible for causing the financial crisis, but also the climate crisis that the world is facing. The Venezuelan government took preventive steps against the financial crisis, such as withdrawing Venezuela’s reserves from US banks two years ago, creating cushion funds to ensure social programs would not be cut and diversifying Venezuela’s oil clientele so as not to be dependent solely on US clients. Recently, several banks have been nationalized by the Venezuelan government and others have been liquidated. But this was more due to the mismanagement and internal corruption within those banks. The Venezuelan government reacted quickly to take over the banks and guarantee customers’ savings would not be lost. In fact, it’s the first time in Venezuela’s history that no customers have lost any of their money during a bank liquidation or takeover. This is part of the Chávez Administration’s policy of prioritizing social needs over economic gain.

7 MW—Here’s an excerpt from a special weekend report by Bloomberg News:

“Americans have grown gloomier about both the economy and the nation’s direction over the past three months even as the U.S. shows signs of moving from recession to recovery. Almost half the people now feel less financially secure than when President Barack Obama took office in January…Fewer than 1 in 3 Americans think the economy will improve in the next six months….Only 32 percent of poll respondents believe the country is headed in the right direction, down from 40 percent who said so in September.” (Bloomberg)

The frustration and disillusionment with the US political/economic system has never been greater in my lifetime. Do you think people in the United States are ready for their own Bolivarian Revolution and steps towards a more progressive, socialistic model of government?

Eva Golinger—-The rise of Barack Obama neutralized a growing sentiment for profound change inside the US. Hopefully, the slowdown in US activism will only be temporary. South of the border, there is tremendous change taking place. New social, political and economic models are being built by popular grassroots movements in Venezuela, Bolivia and other Latin American nations that seek economic and social justice. I believe strongly that models in process, like the Bolivarian Revolution, provide inspiration and hope to those in the US and around the world that alternatives to US capitalism do exist and can be successful.

The US has a rich history of revolution. There are many groups inside the US dedicated to building a better, more humanist system. Unity and a collective vision are essential aspects of building a strong movement capable of moving forward. Every nation has its moment in history. This is the time of Latin America. But there is great hope that the people of the US will soon unite with their brothers and sisters south of the border to bring down Empire and help build a true world community based on social and economic justice for all.

Eva Golinger, winner of the International Award for Journalism in Mexico (2009), named “La Novia de Venezuela” by President Hugo Chávez, is a Venezuelan-American attorney from New York, living in Caracas, Venezuela since 2005 and author of the best-selling books, “The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela” (2006 Olive Branch Press), “Bush vs. Chávez: Washington’s War on Venezuela” (2007, Monthly Review Press), “The Empire’s Web: Encyclopedia of Interventionism and Subversion”, “La Mirada del Imperio sobre el 4F: Los Documentos Desclasificados de Washington sobre la rebelión militar del 4 de febrero de 1992” and “La Agresión Permanente: USAID, NED y CIA”. Since 2003, Eva, a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College and CUNY Law School in New York, has been investigating, analyzing and writing about US intervention in Venezuela using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain information about the US Government’s efforts to destabilize progressive movements in Latin America. Her first book, The Chávez Code, has been translated and published in six languages (English, Spanish, French, German, Italian & Russian) and is presently being made into a feature film.

The Bush-Obama War

Now it’s Barack Obama’s war. After campaigning against “George Bush’s War” in the Middle East, Obama has escalated that war. By transferring thousands of America’s forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, and by sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the liberal Democrat has demonstrated that his administration is not so different from that of his “conservative” Republican predecessor.

While I was crisscrossing America during the campaign season last year, I repeatedly predicted that no matter who won the White House, John McCain or Barack Obama, neither would end the war in the Middle East. Many Democrats tried to argue with me, saying they knew Obama would end the war. Now they know I told the truth.

During his speech at West Point in which he announced the war’s escalation, he said, “[T]he Taliban [is] a ruthless, repressive and radical movement.” What he (or John McCain or George W. Bush) never bothers to tell you is that this is the same Taliban that the US government SUPPORTED, back when it was fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Obama also said, “We are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.” That is a lie! US forces will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Obama has no more intention of bringing all US troops out of Iraq than he does bringing them home from Afghanistan. Beyond that, there are more private contractors (read “mercenaries”) operating in Iraq than US troops. And this will likely be the case in Afghanistan, as well.

But not only did Obama escalate the war in Afghanistan, he made it clear that he is prepared to extend the war into Pakistan. Obama’s speech was laced with references to Pakistan. Examples:

“Our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

“Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” (Note: the latest reports state that there are no more than 100 al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.)

“We need a strategy that works on both sides of the [Afghanistan-Pakistan] border.”

Obama even intimated that he was prepared to extend the war well beyond Pakistan. He told the West Point cadets, “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends WELL BEYOND Afghanistan and Pakistan.” (Emphasis added.)

Just how far beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan Obama intends to extend the war he did not say, but there is no question he is fully prepared to broaden the war even further.

Obama even had the unmitigated gall to criticize the Afghan government for being “hampered by corruption, the drug trade.” Need I remind readers that for all its faults, when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, there was virtually NO DRUG TRADE coming out of Afghanistan? For all intents and purposes, the Taliban destroyed the drug business in Afghanistan. Opium and drug production only returned to Afghanistan after US forces displaced the Taliban. In fact, drug production in Afghanistan takes place right under the noses (no pun intended) and with the passive compliance of US forces.

But there is an even more evil and sinister motive for perpetual war than drug smuggling: perpetual war is a tool of globalists to enslave us!

Under the rubric of the “war on terror,” Big Government elitists are able to dismantle the constitutional safeguards of our freedom. Without 9/11 and the “war on terror” there would be no Patriot Act, for example.

Remember, the Patriot Act was first proposed during the Clinton administration, but a recalcitrant Republican Congress refused to approve it. But with a Republican in the White House (G.W. Bush), those same Republicans easily passed the Patriot Act into law. And to show you how this partisanship stuff works, those same Democrats who tried to pass the Patriot Act in the 90s (called by a different name, of course), voted AGAINST the Patriot Act when proposed by Republicans in the early 2000s. And since we’re on the Patriot Act, don’t hold your breath waiting for a Democratic Congress or the Democrat Barack Obama to expunge it.

Now think it through: first, the Democrats tried to pass the Patriot Act (under a different name) and Republicans opposed it. Next, Republicans (who once opposed it) passed the Patriot Act and Democrats (who once proposed it) opposed it. Now, both Democrats and Republicans (who have both opposed and proposed it) accept and embrace the Patriot Act. And with all that political posturing and grandstanding aside, the Patriot Act is only law today because WE ARE AT WAR.

Without war, we would not have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)–which cannot even keep uninvited people out of the White House–the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and thousands of laws and regulations that trample constitutionally protected liberties.

In the name of “War,” our government can record our phone calls, read our emails, monitor our financial transactions and movements, and even place an Army combat division (USNORTHCOM) on American soil to WATCH–OR EVEN FIGHT AGAINST–US! And some of you don’t even give it a second thought. Why? WE ARE AT WAR!

I know! I know! Obama promises to “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.” Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that we are going to spend trillions of dollars on the war effort, send more than 50,000 troops plus thousands of independent contractors, and ship millions of tons of equipment half way around the world, and then turn around and bring them all back home IN EIGHTEEN MONTHS? I might have been born in the morning, but it was not yesterday morning!

Of course, that brings up another purpose globalists have in keeping us at war: the financial cost of waging war keeps the country in debt and keeps the Fed’s printing presses running.

Come on, folks, face it: there are many people who get “filthy, stinking” rich during times of war. If you have not read USMC Brigadier General Smedley Butler’s book, “War is a Racket,” you need to get it.

After winning the Marine Corps Brevet Medal, the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, the French Order of the Black Star and TWO Congressional Medals of Honor, Butler said (as quoted in Common Sense magazine), “I spent 33 years and four months in active service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, do you really think things have gotten any better since General Butler wrote those words?

All in all, perpetual war serves two great interests: it helps the Machiavellians among us strip us of our liberties, and it helps the military-industrial complex make trillions of dollars. For these reasons, Barack Obama will do nothing to end the war in the Middle East. If anything, he will expand the war beyond Afghanistan, as he plainly suggested in his speech at West Point.

Once again, unless Americans recognize that both major parties in Washington, D.C., are persistent in serving the financial interests of internationalists (not to mention their own personal financial interests) and are more than eager to trample constitutional liberties in the process, nothing will change in our country–except that our liberties and way of life will continue to evaporate.

And as I’ve said before, I am absolutely convinced that the only way the evil machinations of the globalists now running things in DC can be thwarted is by State governments drawing a firm and determined line in the sand in defense of their liberties. And they need to start drawing that line NOW!

In the meantime, the Bush-Obama war (it was never America’s war, as it was never constitutionally declared by the people’s representatives) drags on and on and on.

The U.S. Creeps Closer to a Police State

When word first arrived that the G-20 would be meeting in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, activists began organizing protest demonstrations. Events like this are what freedom of speech is made for. What better occasion to protest than a meeting of the world’s 20 top leaders — most of them deservedly hated — where they will be imposing policy on billions of people worldwide?

The majority of protesters consisted of labor and community groups; they encountered an army of police…literally. The New York Times paints an intimidating picture:

“…the police were out in force, patrolling on bicycles, foot and horseback, by river and by air … protesters trying to march toward the convention center…encountered roaming squads of police officers carrying plastic shields and batons. The police fired a sound cannon (a new weapon) that emitted shrill beeps … then threw tear gas canisters that released clouds of white smoke and stun grenades that exploded with sharp flashes of light.” Rubber bullets were used in a separate incident.

And:

“Riot fences lined the sidewalks. Police helicopters, gunboats and Humvees darted to and fro. City officials announced they had up to 1,000 jail cells ready after county officials freed up additional space last week by releasing 300 people who had been arrested on minor probation violations.” (September 25, 2009).

What threat required such a military-like response? None was given. The New York Times article and many like it imply that the mere existence of marching protesters warrants a colossal reaction. Of course the presence of “anarchists” is used to further scare readers into accepting such foolishness, as if this breed of protester is especially lethal (the vast majority of anarchists are like all protesters — they do not attack the police or anybody else, though some protesters respond aggressively when being confronted with the above mentioned police weapons).

The G-20 police presence is not a terrible surprise to anyone who has attended a legitimate, community-organized protest over the years. Non-provoked usage of brutal weaponry is becoming commonplace; the police-enforced use of “free speech zones” at protests — small areas surrounded by fences in some cases — is nothing new.

But the staggering police presence at the G-20 confirms that the stakes have been raised. Two turning points that deserve special attention — since the mainstream media continues to ignore them — are last years Democratic and Republican National Conventions. In both cases incredible abuses of police powers were witnessed, with the Republican Convention (RNC) showcasing the most extreme cases of state repression.

At the RNC the unlawful tactic of mass arrests were used when, in separate incidents, a public park and bridge were surrounded by police, trapping everyone in the dragnet. The documentary, Terrorizing Dissent, has excellent footage of both episodes (www.terrorizingdissent.org). Police brutality was also a regular occurrence at the RNC — including much unnecessary usage of pepper spray and tasers — while occurring alongside an even more troubling episode.

The group now referred to as the RNC 8 consists of eight community organizers potentially facing years in jail for helping organize protests at the RNC. The original charge was the Orwellian Conspiracy to Riot in the second degree in Furtherance of Terrorism (other terrorism-related charges were later added). These terrorism charges were the first ever usage of the Patriot Act toward political activists. And although the terrorism provisions of the charges have since been dropped, due to public pressure, the attempt to equate terrorism with activism has incredible, non-accidental implications for the future.

When the Patriot Act was first enacted, there was no shortage of writers and activists warning about the potential of misuse. These predictions have been fully confirmed. Both the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act have created what many believe to be the framework for a full-fledged police state, with the initial flurry of abuses creating a series of dangerous precedents.

One famous precedent is the so-called Telecom scandal, where tele-communication corporations colluded with the Bush-controlled National Security Agency to illegally spy on an unknown number of innocent people. No one has gone to jail for this. Indeed, as a Senator, Obama was one of many Democrats who supported Bush’s telecom immunity bill, which excuses those who broke the law while creating new powers to make spying on Americans legal.

Equally outrageous is the Military Commissions Act, created under Bush to destroy a fundamental democratic right: habeas corpus, or due process. This right says that the government cannot jail a person unless there is proof of crimes committed, while also giving that person a chance to challenge these charges in a legal court with a jury.

Bush created a separate category of person called an “enemy combatant,” which he claimed was too dangerous to be treated constitutionally. An “enemy combatant” can be tried in a military court with secret or no evidence; or they can be jailed forever without even the symbolic military trial. Of course, it is only a hop and a skip away for political activists charged with terrorist crimes to be considered “enemy combatants” or “domestic terrorists.”

Obama continues to uphold Bush’s destruction of due process. Obama has said publicly that many so-called enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay will be held “indefinitely” without being tried for their alleged crimes. Supposedly, they are “the worst of the worst.” If this is true then evidence should be produced to prove it, since anyone can accuse anybody of the most heinous crimes. Without evidence, however, such accusations correctly fall on deaf ears. But no more. Now, accusations of “terrorist activities” warrant life sentences. No crime need be committed, only a vague intention — even if such intentions were formed by the suggestions of an FBI informant and are impossible to implement. The media blares these absurd “terrorist plots” as facts, and the rationale behind the destruction of civil liberties is re-enforced.

It must not be forgotten that many of the “crimes” Guantanamo Bay inmates are being accused of are merely acts of resistance to the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, something they have every right to do.

The grossly illegal Guantanamo Bay is not being closed down like Obama promised, but moved. The equally illegal Bagram air base in Afghanistan is getting an upgrade, this according to the Independent:

“The air base is about to undergo a $60 [million] (£42m) expansion that will double its size, meaning it can house five times as many prisoners as remain at Guantanamo.” (February 22, 2009).

Not only will Bagram continue to be an institution of terror, but also some analysts estimate that there remain 18,000 people held worldwide in foreign U.S. facilities — so-called black sites — with no legal rights. The absence of even Red Cross observation at these prisons insures that “harsh interrogations” (torture) will remain a regular habit.

The above abuses of the Patriot Act have trickled down from high-profile terrorism cases (some who have made confessions under torture), to regular usage against alleged gang members, drug dealers and immigrants.

For example, one section of the Patriot Act gives police the power to search people’s home secretly without notifying the homeowner — called “sneak and peeks,” a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. The logic again was that “special powers” were needed to track down “terrorists.” The Huffington Post reported, “Only three of the 763 “sneak-and-peek” requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases… Sixty-five percent were drug cases.” (September 23, 2009).

The illegal entry and searching of immigrant’s homes — or anyone suspected of being an immigrant — is widely known by the Latino community and continues to include the terror-inducing tactics of pre-dawn raids with guns drawn.

Once anti-constitutional behavior is applied to alleged terrorists, and extended to immigrants and people suspected of being gang members or drug dealers, such police behavior becomes normalized, and can then be easily expanded to all people accused of being “criminals.” Police are widely known to consider political activists, protesters, and striking workers as criminal types, beliefs encouraged by the mainstream media.

Which brings us to why? Why does the destruction of democratic rights that accelerated under Bush continue with Obama? With every political “why” question one must first answer: who benefits?

In this case the benefiting parties are the giant corporations that dominate politics in the U.S. The people steering these companies had good foresight: they saw that the global capitalist economy necessitated a race to the bottom for workers’ living standards. As U.S. corporations faced stiffer competition abroad for international markets, wages and benefits for U.S. workers would have to shrink, especially when U.S. corporations were investing heavily in emerging economies — China, India, etc., — for their slave wages.

U.S. corporate executives also understood that China became a police state out of necessity, so that its dollar-a-day workers could be brought into line (U.S. corporate investment rose sharply after the Tiananmen Square massacre). The trend of U.S. workers’ wages leads logically to similar conclusions.

The creation of NAFTA to extend the dominance of U.S. corporations to Mexico and Canada would also have predictably negative effects on workers’ living standards. Now, with two unpopular wars taking place and a third on the way (Pakistan) to further extend the profit margins of U.S. corporations, a breaking point is nearing.

Public money is being used to bail out banks and wage foreign wars while the recession continues to destroy jobs and drive down wages. This unpopular policy is viewed as a necessity for U.S. corporations, and Obama has no intention of reversing course. The police-state foundation created by Bush and continued under Obama is a stern warning to the U.S. working class to accept our fate or face dire consequences. It is already a fact that many people are too afraid of police repression to attend a protest, just as some workers are too afraid to be on a picket line during a strike.

Ultimately, a real democracy cannot function where there exists tremendous inequalities in wealth, where large sections of the population are in poverty. This is why democracies are not viable in poor countries: the super-rich use their power over the state — including dictatorships and mass repression — to crush social movements that challenge the status quo, as we are witnessing today in Honduras. The same dynamic is being created in the United States, where the vast majority of people are clamoring for real change, while those in the two-party system are using all means available to keep their rotten system in place.

America Sees Red

There is a Jewish tale, in which a man is promised that he will be granted any wish he chooses, so long as his neighbour will get twice as much. After some thought he states his wish: please put me out one of my eyes! This is a very American attitude. An American refuses to get free medical care, if the condition is that others will get it, too. This we learned from the rallies against Obama’s health reform. The slogans and ideas of the demonstrators were just too weird!

A little girl asks how she will pay the bill for the reformed health services. This little girl — or rather, her parents – did not go out and ask how she was going to pay off the bills for the Iraqi and Afghani wars, how she was going to pay for the US involvement in Palestine, how she would repay the trillions given away to the bankers. Up until now, Big Government was good. It provided billions for AIG – ok. Billions for a new fighter jets – great. Billions to Blackwater to kill more Afghanis and Pakistanis – fine. Billions to Israel – perfect. But funding for health? What a communist notion!

The US health insurance problem is something we foreigners can’t understand. All of us, whether in England or Russia or Israel or France, have a national health service; we regret only that it is not as good as it used to be. But how can normal people prefer turning their health into a commodity and making it dependent on their bank accounts? This strange attitude is rooted in America’s older ills.

The US is an experimental ‘project’ – to see what would happen when a rather empty space is colonized by people of diverse backgrounds, ethnicities and affiliations, all moved by the desire to get rich and knowing no moral inhibitions but the Smith and Wesson. At first, they destroy the natives and the neighbours, afterwards they turn to cannibalism. If the Americans do not eat each other, it is only because they have found somebody else to eat together.

America was informed by love of profit and by hatred of communism. Her anticommunism is visceral, brutal, basic, inherent. The United States was created as the supreme sheriff, as the bastion of staunch individualism, of ‘homo homini lupus est’, of rejection of the notions of solidarity and mutual help. This was the plan of project designers.

Human nature being what it is, this satanic plan was partly upset by the inherent goodness of men and women. There are many wonderful Americans, rebels against crass materialism and unbridled greed, but they are isolated in their milieu; the best American characters are living and fighting alone. Such is Thoreau in his Walden. Such is Ishmael aboard the Pequod. Such is the Old Man at the Sea. Solidarity – togetherness – is conspicuous by its absence from American literature.

Every European state, from England to Russia, has its National Health, for every nation considers self a living body, and every member of the nation is as valued as a body part. All these nations are or were Christian and solidarist. Their citizens were embraced by one church. The US is different because of the anti-solidarist and anti-Christian spirit of her founders. Her Manifest Destiny did not connect to the faith. The US founders openly denied she was a Christian nation when concluding the Tripoli treaty, and their denial was sincere, because solidarity is a basic tenet of the Christian faith.

Every part of American society – Left, Right, churches, parties – are touched by this lack of compassion magnified by envy. The US Right is obsessed with anticommunism. This goes without saying for the imperialist Right of Ronald Reagan and George Bushes Junior and Senior. What is upsetting is that even the traditional anti-imperialist, nationalist American Right (the “paleocons”) are equally anti-communist and anti-Christian. I, for one, hoped they would understand their mistakes of yesteryear and become allies of other anti-imperialist forces including China, Russia and Iran. Alas, while they do not like neocons, and this is all to the good, they are no better themselves: Instead of fighting Arabs, they would rather kill Russians.

In a recent essay, Patrick Buchanan glorifies Adolf Hitler’s Germany and vilifies Communist Russia. He is sorry that the US allied with the Russians against the Germans, and not vice versa. Though Russia is no longer Communist, he would like to fight it anyway.

Mind you, I do not need smelling salts every time Hitler’s name is mentioned. I do not think everyone has to hate Hitler. I am at peace with people who admire Hitler for sentimental reasons: they like his solidarism, or German greatness or his vegetarianism, or his treatment of banks and bankers or unification of German lands. But there is a red line: people who admire Hitler because he attacked Russia and/or massacred civilians are my enemies too. In the battle of Stalingrad, I know which side I am on. And Buchanan is on the other side.

Similar anti-communist and anti-Russian notes prevail in other far-right white-nationalist writings. Be on the look out for the telling word “hordes”. For neocons, there are Muslim hordes, for the white-nationalists, these are Russian hordes, as in Patrick Buchanan: “By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin”. He forgot to explain that this happened because the people of these great capitals had decided to try their luck in Moscow under Hitler’s banners, and it may well happen again if this lesson is forgotten.

Our erstwhile friend Tom Sunic came from his search for a New Right to the Old Hitlerism: “The last shot in the European capital of Berlin was fired by a drunken Soviet soldier, killing the young French Waffen SS volunteer.” Well, God bless the Soviet soldier, drunken or sober, for his steady mark, and to hell with the SS-man, young or middle-aged, especially if he volunteered to do that butcher job.

Buchanan writes of “the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin”. Hatred of Stalin, the man who stopped Hitler, created modern Russia and resurrected the Russian Church after the Trotskyite excesses, is the common ground of these anticommunists. If they care at all about the Russian people as they pretend they do, they can ask them and find out that despite decades of anticommunist propaganda, Stalin is much loved by Russians. In the huge recent poll run by the Russian TV, Stalin was chosen ‘the most important personality in the whole history of Russia’ next to St Alexander Nevsky. The Russians remember that Stalin became the leader of an illiterate country devastated by civil war – a country of no industry, of dying agriculture, of no money and of plenty of debts, surrounded by enemies. He created industry, built housing and roads, created full free health care and comprehensive free education for all; he made Russia the best educated country in the world.

Unprejudiced Americans may find Stalin’s simple attitude to life and business rather to their liking. He’d have solved the current financial crisis by dispatching the bankers to chop wood somewhere deep in Oregon and by canceling all debts. The automobile plants of Detroit would be saved. When Stalin discovered a Zionist Lobby in his country, he smashed it on the spot instead of surrendering to them, while ordinary Jews who were loyal to Russia retained their positions. That is why his name is besmirched by anticommunists.

This is neither the time nor the place to deal with impossible exaggerations of alleged Soviet crimes. It is enough to state that they are fantastic. Nobody, even Stalin, could have killed one hundred million people out of one hundred sixty million, won a war and yet found himself with two hundred fifty million at the end of it.

This sick hatred of communism pours out of a column by another anti-imperialist right-winger, Chuck Baldwin. This “alternative candidate” fumed against the Chinese national flag, which is red, being hoisted at the White House’s South Lawn for an anniversary of the Chinese national holiday. He speaks of “the extreme offensiveness of flying the Communist Chinese flag”. This is “unbelievable, unreal, horrific, obscene, even traitorous… for the communist leaders of Mao’s China are the Butchers of Beijing, and this proves … the communist leanings of President Barack Obama”.

Further, Baldwin spreads the heart-rending story of the Chinese people’s suffering under the cruel leadership of Mao. If Communist leadership is so bad, how come the US is indebted to China to the tune of a few trillions? Before Mao, China was an impoverished semi-colony of the West, ‘the Chinese and dogs were not allowed’ into some parts of Shanghai, famines were annual, and Anglo-American navies studiously supplied the people with opium when they weren’t busy burning Beijing Palace. Now, after so many years of Communist tyranny, the Chinese are a shining example for the rest of the world.

In any case, flying the Chinese national flag at such events is not a proclamation of Communism as state doctrine, it is just a normal sign of courtesy. Likewise, flying the Israeli flag over the same lawn was not considered by the sane as a sign of submission to the Elders of Zion, nor flying the British flag as cancellation of Declaration of Independence. It is pity that the Obama administration allegedly got cold feet and decided to cancel the event. This suppleness of Obama’s back is not a good sign, as we have already learned in the Middle East.

The US Left is afraid of communism as well. In many, many articles and responses to the anti-Obama rallies, left-wing authors invariably stress the racism of the demonstrators. William Rivers Pitt called the “white, middle-aged, overweight, pissed-off right-wingers… a Klan rally minus the bedsheets and torches.” Susie Day pretends that the rallies were formed by those whites upset by Obama’s mouthing off to a white cop.

I am not a great believer in racism. Reputation of this sin is largely overblown, to the best of my knowledge. The Russians, who are supposed to be racists, loved Stalin, a Georgian. The French and the Germans, presumably also racist, had a Jewish prime minister and a foreign minister respectively in the last century. The Americans had no problem electing the black Obama. So much for racism. The American leftists who explain everything by racism are barking up the wrong tree, and they know it – but they dare not speak about the real problems.

This sick fear of human solidarity is American society’s knee-jerk reaction. It was activated by the Lobby in order to undermine President Obama. Because he spoke against Israeli expansion, because he mentioned Palestinian rights and sorrows, they fight against him on every possible occasion – even on the issue of national health. If Obama would just do everything they want in the Middle East, his domestic initiatives would pass as easily as a steamer through the Golden Gate.

Obama is attacked at every step. Look at the Middle East: Israel wants to bomb Iran. The President refused Netanyahu’s pleas to attack Tehran, but the Lobby doesn’t take no for an answer. In the Voice of the Lobby, a.k.a. The Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens impossibly claims: Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War. How? Obama’s refusal to attack Iran is “pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran”. The Voice of the Lobby does not hide the fact that such a strike could well usher in a “price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between.” For a normal reader, the conclusion is clear: that’s why Obama forbade the Israelis to attack Iran. But the Lobby’s sophist offers another solution: let Obama’s America attack Iran instead of Israel. Obama’s refusal to interfere with Iran is presented as “Obama’s pushing Israel toward war”. Begorrah!

While the enemy is active, no friends are forthcoming to help the embattled American President. Many of us received and forwarded an email claiming that Obama supported the coup d’etat in Honduras. But much less attention was paid when Obama actually cut off US aid to Honduras in response to the coup.

Sensing this loneliness of the President, Netanyahu ridicules his mild and limited demands. There is no other word for Israel’s response – that they will freeze some settlements’ construction work for a few months. Such a response is only marginally better than “shove it”. This was followed by an announcement that some five hundred new Jewish homes will be built in the teeth of Obama’s demand. Obama does not dare to push intransigent Israel any more, for Congress and the Senate are in the Jewish pocket, and these powerful Jews prefer Zionism to Communism.

What a pity! Once upon a time, the Jews were all for Communism and none for Zionism, and the human lot markedly improved. In a remarkable article, Winston Churchill wrote in 1920s: the Jews are choosing between Communism and Zionism, let us direct them towards Zionism so they will isolate themselves and stop bothering us. His plan was realised: Jews were seduced by the Zionist idea, parted with communism and became its enemies. The result was quite sad: the positive contribution of Israeli Jews to mankind’s welfare is next to zero, unless you count the development of new torture and surveillance techniques. Jews elsewhere waste their abilities and time on the same rotten Zionist project, instead of helping their fellow countrymen to improve their lives. Winston Churchill lit a candle, and its light attracts the butterflies who die in its flames. The daring report of Judge Richard Goldstone is a first harbinger of a weather change: despite his pro-Israel sympathies he condemned the recent Zionist atrocities in Gaza.

Now it is time for Obama to move forward fearlessly. He should listen to his fellow- Americans. If they are so upset and worried by immigration, stop immigration completely. Send away illegal aliens, or legalise those who have lived long enough in America. Show people that you care about them.

Proceed with the health care. This field is ripe for revolution. Only in a time of crisis can a great leader enact radical reforms:

• Borrow the script from Illich’s Medical Nemesis, and minimise the cost of medical care. Do it the Cuban way.
• Treat health care like fire brigades – human bodies are no less important than buildings. Nobody is amazed that the fire brigades are not private. Turn health care into a public service, and make all doctors public employees.
• Ban private medical care.
• Provide medical help for everyone, at the state’s expense.
• Stop expensive life-saving, life-supporting devices. No transplantations, no complicated infertility treatments, no reproductive technology, no heart-and-brain operations, no abortions.
• Cut down research. Let incurable diseases remain incurable.
• Allow people to get born and to die; this is normal, as opposed to this morbid fear of death.
• While he’s at it, nationalise pharmaceutical companies. Let them sell medicine to the national health service at the cost of production.

Thus the national health system will become good, simple, comprehensive and inexpensive. Communism? Yes! Good for you? Yes, unless you are a wealthy gynecologist. And Comrade Stalin would approve of it! J

Why the U.S. Government Hates Venezuela

The propaganda wheels are turning fast. The barrage of anti-Venezuela misinformation that began while Bush was in office has intensified in recent months. Not a week goes by without the U.S. mainstream media running at least one story about the “dictatorial” Venezuelan government. Historically, the U.S. government’s foreign policy “coincidentally” matches the opinion of the media and vice versa.

A front page New York Times article on August 2, 2009 cited “new evidence” that the Venezuelan government “still” supports the FARC — a peasant-based guerrilla group that has fought the Colombian government for decades.

This “new evidence” is a mere recycling of the last tactical attempt to link the Venezuelan government with the FARC: computers were supposedly confiscated from FARC leaders that showed innumerable ties to Venezuelan government officials. Of course anybody can write anything on a computer and say it came from somewhere else. Evidence like this needs only a willing accomplice — the media — to legitimize it.

The Venezuelan government denies the accusations. But even if Venezuela maintained a policy of openly supporting the FARC, it would be more justifiable than the U.S. policy of openly supporting the Colombian government. Colombia is the most-hated and repressive government in the western hemisphere, but the U.S. gives billions of dollars of financial, military and political aide. This despicable relationship has not ended under Obama, but has in fact strengthened.

The recent announcement that the U.S. military would move potentially thousands of troops to Colombia, where they will access five Colombian military bases, has put Venezuela and the rest of Latin America on alert. The Obama administration has not explained the move publicly, though Latin Americans need no explanation.

The continent has a long history of being exploited by U.S. corporations, who work in tandem with the U.S. government to oust “non-cooperative” governments, using countless tactics to meet their objectives including clandestine C.I.A. coups.

The recent U.S.-backed military coup in Honduras sent shockwaves throughout the region, exposing the Obama administration for what it is: yet another government dedicated to the interests of the super-wealthy and corporations, who want their “investments” in Latin America to be protected from “populist” governments who redistribute wealth and land.

U.S. corporations have felt their power slipping in the hemisphere for years, much of it due to the influence of Venezuela. This is because social movements in Venezuela have advanced further than anywhere else in the world — factories have been taken over and run by workers, community councils make local decisions democratically, land is being taken over by peasants, independent media is spreading, and the property of U.S. corporations has been taken over to be used for the needs of the average Venezuelan. Although the vast majority of these gains are due to the work of grassroots Venezuelans, the government has not only given approval to such actions, but often is responsible for suggesting the ideas.

Venezuela’s example has dramatically changed the political landscape in Latin America, inspiring millions. For the first time, governments and social movements alike feel empowered to oppose U.S. corporate dominance and instead are seeking to arrange their economies in ways that benefit the majority of people.

In Venezuela these ideas are often referred to as 21st century socialism, and the rest of the hemisphere is clamoring to get on board. The battle of ideas between 21 st century socialism and free-market capitalism has already been settled in the region, with capitalism facing utter defeat.

Having lost in the realm of ideas, those supporting capitalism must compensate by other means. Barack Obama is a very outspoken devotee of capitalism, and has shown by his coup in Honduras — and also the military build-up in Colombia — that he will go to any length to prop-up U.S. corporations and rich investors in the region.

There can be absolutely no doubt that Obama will seek to undermine the Venezuelan government by any means available, including the very real possibility of a proxy invasion through Colombia. None of these attempts to undermine the advances in Venezuela and other countries will benefit the peoples of Latin America or the United States, minus a tiny minority of the super wealthy. With this kind of understanding often comes organizing and action, with the ultimate aim to end U.S. economic and military intervention abroad, not only in Latin America, but the Middle East and beyond.

Obama Lynching Party

The honeymoon President Barack Obama has enjoyed with the media since his inauguration was abruptly over – after the Cairo Speech. After his promise of peace with the Islamic world, in no time this savior of America, the man who said Yes, We Can became increasingly lonely and besieged by an unlikely coalition of Zionists, the loony left and right-wing racists.

Barack Obama has become the bane of Israeli Jews, wrote the Jewish Forward‘s Nathan Jeffai. Only 6% of Jewish Israelis consider his views pro-Israel, while over 50% see him as pro-Palestinian and about 30% consider him neutral. This President is lethal for both Israel and the free world, exclaimed the starry-eyed British Zionist columnist, Melanie Phillips. Obama, she said, is destroying “the security not just of Israel but the world through his reckless appeasement of Iran”. He “has actively undercut the Iranian democrats… Obama has decided America will ‘live with’ a nuclear Iran. Which leaves Israel hung out to dry”. There are hundreds, nay, thousands of such pieces, relentlessly attacking the President for trying to stop Israel’s abuse of Palestine. They turn the man who received some 80% of the Jewish vote into a black monster craving for Jewish blood.

The Israel Lobby’s hatred of the president became a new secret taboo never to be spoken of, just silently acknowledged – like the Israel Lobby’s drive for the Iraq war and for a bombing of Iran. In a short video shot by Max Blumenthal, young American Jews on a visit to Israel speak with fiery hatred about their new president. This video opened a narrow window into the even more narrow viewpoint of Jewish Obama-haters. In no time, the window was shut and this evidence destroyed. Click the offered link, if you wish, you’ll find no video. YouTube removed it “due to terms of use violation”. (There is an alternative , still not discovered by the Search-and-Destroy team of AIPAC). An important and rather sane American voice, the Huffington Post also took the video down, claiming it “had no news value”. Richard Silverstein mused that “for some liberal political websites posting material that is too embarrassing for Israel is not kosher, even if it is Israelis or Jews themselves who are doing the embarrassing.”

The neocons attacked Obama because of his stand on Iran. When the President refused the pressure and did not try to de-legitimise the Iranian government, Paul Wolfowitz, the man behind the Iraq War personally demanded to see more blood.

However, the truly horrific power of the Lobby is in its ability to mobilize masses of people of ostensibly differing views and lead them to a single goal. After the Lobby began drawing his blood, certain left-wing writers and our internet media happily joined the Obama lynching party.

William Blum is not a neocon like Wolfowitz or Caroline Glick, he is a strong critic of the American Empire.  Like more than a few American Jews, Blum compared Obama with Adolf Hitler. Blum is not that hard on Israel. He would not compare Zionists with Hitler. “Instead of getting entangled in who [Israel or the Palestinians] started the current mess”, he writes, as if it is an obscure point; he stresses that “Israel’s existence is not at stake” and wonders about the legacy of “the idealistic Zionist pioneers”. But Obama is a Hitler for Blum, because … Hitler also gave a speech for peace and against war (!?). For LaRouche, Obama is like Hitler for some other crazy reason. The mad Trot wing of the Lobby usually has its own, special reasons to be against enemies of the Jews, but their bottom line is always the same as for the stalwart Republican women’s group.

Blum typifies the left-wing Obama bashers. They do not care that Obama has been endorsed by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. They disregard the voice of Patrick Seale, the doyen of Middle East journalism, a friend of the Syrian Assads who was fully satisfied with Obama’s advances. They are surely more radical.

They complain that Obama did not actually congratulate Ahmadinejad and did not support him. They complain that he did not undo in a month everything that was done during last hundred years. They complain that he did not dismiss everybody who was somebody in Clinton administration. They complain that the US did not join Iran and North Korea in the Axis of Evil. They complain that Obama did not put all the Goldman Sachs staff into a maximum security prison, next to Bernie Madoff.

The Obama lynching party does not even try to be fair: any story can be provided with a misleading anti-Obama headline. Our friend Cynthia McKinney, the wonderful ex-Congresswoman and a Green Party presidential candidate, joined the Free Gaza run trying to break the Israeli-imposed Gaza siege. This was a noble and daring enterprise, alas, doomed to fail: as expected, the Israeli state-run pirates seized their ship in international waters and briefly jailed her before deporting her.  The story was correctly written by the Free Gaza movement, but afterwards, it was forwarded and placed on our friends’ sites under false and misleading headline: “Obama State Dept. intervenes to block Free Gaza aid voyage”. (You can read it here and here, among the rest). The headline as it appears was not provided by Free Gaza. The US State Department actually did NOT intervene. The Left leg of the Lobby succeeded in smearing Obama – though the State Department is run by Mme Clinton, and President Obama can’t yet override her and all the rest. Other unwitting agents of the Lobby re-ran the same story under the headline “Obama okays Israel’s piracy”. Nothing in the text (by Paul Craig Roberts) implies or justifies the headline.

Obama bashers ask why he did not send the Sixth Fleet to lift the Gaza siege, and why Navy Seals did not protect Cynthia McKinney, and they conclude that the president “betrayed” Cynthia and Gaza. Instead, they could pay attention to the fact that the American mainstream media gave zero coverage to the Free Gaza plight. The Masters of Discourse, media lords, the networks are the guilty ones, not the President.

Government is the art of the possible, the art of compromise. Rulers need consensus, and consensus can’t be built if the media is hostile. The American mainstream media is Jewish-owned and Jewish-operated, and it has its own red lines. Rulers who forget this get impeached or assassinated. When President J F Kennedy tried to stop and undo the Dimona Project, he was killed, and his position taken by Lyndon B Johnson, that most devout Zionist who allowed Israelis to build their nuclear arsenal and to attack the USS Liberty. If Obama were to send the Fleet, he would be assassinated, and his place would be taken by an arch-zionist Vice President Joe Biden. What’s worse, the American public would not understand his steps. A hostile media would not allow him to be understood.

Obama had built-in limitations: without Biden as the surety, he would never have been allowed to win. Without Axelrod and Rahm, he would not be allowed to rule. These limitations are the direct result of America being formed, educated and guided by its pre-eminently Jewish elites of the last fifty years. The majority of Americans are pro-Israel and are pro-Jewish. This can change, but probably not as fast and as drastically as some would like. This is not only the Congress that is devoted to Jewish causes: a few generations of Americans have been brought up on Hollywood brainwashing, Holocaust stories and Israel worship. By speaking against the settlements, Obama already came very close to the red line no American leader may cross but at his own peril. He may do more, and he should be pushed to do more, but it is the Lobby and its media lords who should be attacked, not the President.

We should be more aware of the distortions created by Obama’s would-be lynchers. The coup d’etat in Honduras was presented as “Obama’s First Coup d’Etat” by many sites who swallowed the crypto-Zionist Trot lie – actually, Obama condemned the coup immediately. Our friend and expert on Latin America, Maria Poumier, writes in a penetrating essay Obama did not invade Honduras:

“The putsch in Honduras failed, thanks to Obama. This is the view of Fidel Castro and of Chavez. The coup was planned by the Zionist Lobby, by Miami neocons, who want to push the blame on Obama… but Chavez and Fidel [Mme Poumier has an access to both leaders] greet with enthusiasm the “chavization of Obama”. A Cuban analyst interprets the events in Honduras as “a sign of the declining American Empire’s loss of control”. After the failure to radio-control a civil war in Iran, partly because of the coolness and unwillingness of Obama, it is a new rout for the hawks, so let us be happy with our success.”

Maria Poumier admits that “Obama’s freedom of action is very limited. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon wants to obey him. Zionists in the Democrat Party intended to manage him. But they miscalculated. He is not a raw material for their schemes… Obama may rule as a king by divine right, being endorsed by the people of the whole world, and he knows it. He is torn between two possible roles: to be the Chavez or Ahmadinejad of the north, or to stick to the role that was envisaged by the original scenario, the role of a modernizing instrument of the malicious empire. A king can be a good king if the people support him and push him in the right direction. He can achieve nothing, if the intellectuals succeed in antagonising the people against him.”

I am worried that the Lobby succeeded in activating so many forces against Obama. The most outspoken enemies of Jews also got hitched up to the wagon. Not only they are infiltrated, they are easy to manipulate. A reference to Rahm Emanuel would suffice for them to join in the Lobby’s attack on the president. They spread malicious jokes about Rahm commanding Obama and gleefully number all the Jews in the Administration. I once witnessed the same modus operandi in action against Vladimir Putin. The Russian president was ferociously attacked for exiling and jailing Jewish oligarchs, and at the same time, the Lobby’s agents spread around pictures of Putin in a kippa and listed the Jews in his administration. The idea is to undermine the people’s trust in the President, be it Putin or Obama.

Putin and Obama are due to meet this week. They may compare notes: how to survive the Lobby’s attack; and Putin, not the most brilliant of the two, nevertheless may give sound advice. Putin won by removing the mass media from the oligarchs’ clutches. They lost their TV stations, and after that they were not dangerous anymore. They still have their regional newspapers, and they are as hostile to Putin as ever, but without TV they can’t hypnotise the mass man.

The same advice could be given by Chavez – it is thanks to his satellite TV network TELESUR, that the putschists in Honduras failed to get international recognition. Now Chavez intends to take the media away from the hostile media lords. This should be done in the US, too. A free media is not necessarily a Jewish-owned one, after all!

“No, I will not take part in the lapidation of Obama”, concludes Maria Poumier, and I second her decision: I would not take part in the lynching. I agree with the view of our friend Gilad Atzmon, who wrote:

“President Obama seems to realise what is going on. He knows about the humiliation, he knows about the starvation of Gaza. The fact that he allows himself to juxtapose the Holocaust and Gaza proves that he is a million years ahead of most Palestinian solidarity campaigners who are reluctant to engage in this necessary equation just to avoid offending one Jew or another.

The president has still long way to go. And yet, President Obama has made a major step in the last few days. He is now marching America towards humanism. He reclaims the American ideology of liberty.  I salute the man, I salute the great intellect, I salute the humanist. Gladly I am to admit that God has blessed America. But someone had better take very good care of the safety of its president. He has some fierce and relentless enemies out there. And as we know, they do not stop on red!”

The enemies of Obama are indeed plentiful, from out-and-out racists who hate to be ruled by a Black, to Zionists who are afraid Obama will take an independent course, to loony radicals of the left and of the right. We should stop them, not add to their numbers.

Compromising Democracy in Honduras

Can a solution to the crisis in Honduras – itself the result of a military coup – be “mediated,” where on one side sit coup leaders and on the other a democratically elected but ousted President?  Does any “middle ground” exist?  Of course not.  If President Zelaya unconditionally returns to finish his term in office, democracy will be restored; anything short of that will have democracy  “compromised” into its opposite.

Obama is the behind-the-scenes organizer of this negotiated farce, even though he has no legal or moral right to undermine the democratic process in Honduras.    His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, brought the parties together and chose an “objective” mediator, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias – someone who has obviously aligned himself with the United States.

And while Arias is the “official” mediator, Obama will be the one calling the shots, using U.S. economic and military clout to bully the opposing sides into an “acceptable deal.”

For example, when some members of the coup leadership were still using obstinate language against a deal with ousted President Zelaya, the U.S. finally announced it would withhold $16.5 million in military assistance to the country.

If this announcement were made the day the coup took place – as it was legally required to under U.S. law – the coup would have been crushed.  Now, the money is simply being used to cajole the coup plotters into a more pliable position at the bargaining table; a place at which they obstinately refused to sit previously. It was also announced that $165 million in aide to Honduras could be in jeopardy.  That is, if the coup leaders don’t do exactly as the U.S. demands.

And this highlights a stark fact that many Obama supporters are refusing to see: the origins of the coup, and indeed its resolution, lie squarely on the shoulders of the U.S.   When a country [the U.S.] trains and funds another nation’s military [Honduras], while also purchasing the vast majority of that country’s exports, and supplying it with enormous financial aid, there is little ground for “equal footing.”

In fact, all of Obama’s rhetoric about leaving South America to the South Americans is a conscious ploy at public relations. In reality, the economic and military screws continue to be tightened, and U.S. foreign policy continues as it always has.

After the coup first happened, the entire world reacted with horror, condemnation, and sanctions of various kinds, while everyone understood that only one country had the economic and military influence to actually reverse it…instantly.

Obama purposely dragged his feet.  He cleverly tagged the U.S. name on U.N and O.A.S resolutions, while doing absolutely nothing in the realm of guns, trade, or aid – the places where actual power is wielded.

The New York Times correctly noted that “the mixed messages have emboldened Honduras’s de facto government…” (July 7, 2009).

Also emboldening the coup leaders is Obama’s virtual silence around the fact that Honduras has been transformed into a democracy-free zone, where anti-coup media has been silenced, a military curfew enforced, basic rights suspended, and unarmed protestors killed.

Ousted President Zelaya correctly noted that “if they [the U.S.] decide to live with the coup, then democracy in the Americas is over.”

This is a bold yet correct assessment of the situation in Latin America, carrying with it enormous implications.  Zelaya described in vivid detail one such consequence while talking to Hillary Clinton about his kidnapping at gunpoint.  He asked her, “What have Latin American presidents learned from Honduras? To sleep with our clothes on and our bags packed.”

And while media outlets treated the comment as a mere joke, the truth of it will reverberate throughout Latin America.  If a military coup against a democratically elected government is not completely reversed, elites in the region will be profoundly encouraged to follow the Honduran formula and return to a time where U.S.-backed military coups and mass repression were commonplace.

And while Obama has recently repeated that President Zelaya should be returned to finish out his presidential term, Hillary Clinton “…stopped short of calling for his reinstatement, a departure from statements by President Obama earlier Tuesday…” (New York Times July 7, 2009).

This good-cop-bad-cop routine isn’t by accident, but appears to be an emerging signature of Obama’s forked tongue political method: he says what he thinks people want to hear, while others close to him pursue a different course.

It is unclear at this time what type of rotten compromise will emerge.  Zelaya will either be prevented from returning to his Presidency, or as a senior U.S. official leaked to the press, “…Zelaya would be allowed to return and serve out his remaining six months in office with limited powers…” (Associated Press, July 7, 2009).

Either scenario will have democracy severely eroded, so that those who previously dominated Honduran society – the local super-wealthy and rich U.S. investors – will remain all powerful.

The average, working class Honduran, however, is acting independently.  A mass march of at least 100,000 congregated at the airport last week during President Zelaya’s failed attempt to re-enter the country, a fact heavily obscured or ignored by the U.S. media.

The country’s school teachers are also jointly striking until Zelaya is returned, while talks of a general strike continue.   If such a strike were successfully carried through, all the maneuvers of Obama and the native Honduran elite will have been for naught, and the unconditional return of President Zelaya will be assured.

If that were to happen, the working class would be further forced to defend democracy, by arresting all those who conspired to overthrow the democratically elected Zelaya, including any implicated members of the military, the Honduran business elite, foreign corporation representatives, and members of Congress.

« Previous Page