Saturday, June 16, 2007

CIA and Hamas-From EA

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ... said that al-Qaeda militants were operating in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. "We know that they are there. We know that they are in Lebanon, working closely with Hezbollah. We know that they are in the region," he said.[BBC News - 12/5/2002]

Officials from the Palestinian Authority have accused the Israeli spy agency Mossad of setting up a fake al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Gaza. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said that Israel had set up the mock cell in order to justify attacks in Palestinian areas.[BBC News - 12/8/2002]

The Bush administration described the Gaza events as "a source of profound concern", accusing Hamas of committing acts of terror.The EU suspended what few aid projects it still maintained there.

So in reality this is yet another created groups by the CIA in coordination with Mossad and MI5. Their have been many, haven't there? I find the picture very interesting. It appears that the group of people celebrating are being escorted by another group of people. Look at the way they hold their guns. The typical western stance. Professional. Black OP. You can see the intelligence coordinator on 'her' cell phone. If you look very closely, there are two of the men hanging their arm over the stocks of their guns, while their MIDDLE finger is in trigger position. This is classic US Military style. Its Pro, no doubt in my mind.

I think that most groups like this are made up of 30 percent black ops, and 70 percent radicals, and funded supported and implemented by the CIA, MI5, Mossad, etc.

They need terror to progress their plans on Humanity, for a sane population would never take it. And we are not sane. They have been gradually making us insane since that sanity was broken with the first world war. But they had to have a reason for the 'industrial revolution', and up until that point there was no need as of yet. So they made one. It was the war, and always has been. That is there only solution to gain their power, and paper sand piles. An atricle talking about Zionism and Hamas.

Perpetual war on Earth.

It will stop, when we have stoped taking it. Only then. From that time onward we are going to have to find better ways of treading upon this planet, or Mother nature will see to our end in some form. What of our children, our forefathers, our future children children's?

They want to own it all, and use it all, for the betterment of themselves, and not the Human Collective of the souls that reside here, and now.

When will we hold ourselves accountable to ourselves, as the whole?

There are many magic tricks that are taking place today, and on many levels. An illusion.

Many call out, others will as the time falls into itself, for the merging of ourselves as people into one form, one body, to stand up for ourselves against the destroyers of the Earth.

Or, we will fall into the pit of the arms for hundreds of years of slavedom.

We have to start truly seeing things for what they are, even though the very nature of this will not be accepted by the self.Our future depends on it, things are not going to be like they are now; frankly a dream state, for very much longer. If you dont know why, then just read whats out there today. Most people want other people to bring them the information which then proves their point. That is not good enough any longer. The majority of people today know at the leas that its really bad. Yet, they choose to hide from the fact.

I personally dont think that there is a way to prevent what is coming, nor do I know if it should be prevented. I know though that what takes place after the fact is what is important. What will people choose then, and how will they bring it about. The theories, the hypothesis is nice, but the truth would be right, and that will have to wait for now. We dont know in the end. Just have to wait and see.

But what if you just dont want to see, and as the illusion breaks down more and more, will you as well fight harder to keep it real? We need more people on the side of courage and will, rather than slumber and resent.

Start preparing, at least in the mind and heart. Nothing startles someone like not expecting something suddenly taking place. But for others it will be something much deeper than that. For some the astral plain in your activity right now, doing what you can to couple the two states in harmony, there is alot going on, many different subjects, many levels and realms.

Keep on in the slot until the end, for each mechanism depends upon the activity of that mechanism, thus bringing activity to all parts of all mechanism's.

The US will fall soon now, there is no stopping this from occurring due to the ignorance of the people. But they are not entirely ignorant. Some love the taste of blood, and this goes for all nations. The time of blood will end, but only after the great feast that is to come.

The path comes from the choice of the stepper.

As of now Humanity has still not stood for itself, nor has another stood for Humanity.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Certain Death Of The United States

Certain Death Of
The United States

By Frosty Wooldridge

Did you hear the story on Mitt Romney that proves amusing? He talks on gays, guns, abortion, immigration and the war in Iraq. Like many shyster politicians he flip-flops faster than a pancake cook at I-HOP. We must view Romney and all politicians like a popular summer footwear: Crocs!

Let's face it; Senator Teddy Kennedy symbolizes the Typhoid Mary of immigration. He infected this nation with the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. He injected us with the 1986 amnesty and today, he plunges a dagger into the heart of our civilization with S. 1348.

He's not alone. While Kennedy did nothing to uphold our laws following 1986, Senator John McCain proves the Charles Manson of the Iraq War and immigration. Let's keep bombing Iraq for the sake of killing while we masochistically eviscerate ourselves with an unending line of poor, killers, rapists, misfits, drug dealers and child molesters. Of course, they break into America for a better life!

Senator Harry Reid represents an out of touch, clueless and an Alzheimer's victim that can't remember which country he serves. Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), 75, thinks red/white/green make up the colors of America's flag. Senator Mel Martinez of Florida thinks Cuba should annex the Sunshine State. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona can't grab his butt cheeks with both hands as he panders to 20 million illegal aliens.

None of them deals with reality that common American citizens face daily across our nation. None of them send their kids to already conquered California schools or live in our new felony infested barrios. None of them face the crime, TB and drunk drivers on our highways that kill us daily.

Last week, Newt Gingrich rendered the best five points as to why S. 1348 failed:

1. The Proposed Bill Is Based on a Fantasy and Could Never Be Effectively Implemented: It is outrageous when the federal government is so incompetent it has to suspend passport requirements for Mexico and Canada while at the same time suggesting it will be able to process a "Z" visa for 12 million-plus illegal immigrants in one day.

While American citizens are waiting up to three months or longer for the federal government to process their passports, illegal aliens could get a 'Z' visa within 24 hours under the hopefully dead Amnesty Bill. Outrageous! The system is beyond broken when we cannot prioritize the needs of citizens before the desires of non-citizen lawbreakers.

2.The Attempt to Blackmail the American People by Threatening to Refuse to Enforce the Law Without a New Bill Is Disgraceful: A number of powerful figures in the Bush Administration and in the Senate have been saying that if we do not agree to pass this destructive bill, they will never enforce the law.

3. Americans Do Not Change Our Values to Fit Government Failures: When Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said that we had to "bow to the reality" of millions of people being here illegally, he illustrated the difference between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan as President.

4.Why Should Any American Believe That This Government Will Keep Its Word and Do Better This Time? We now hear from the President that we have failed to control the border and failed to enforce the law on employers, and therefore, we need a new law to replace the law we have been failing to enforce. The Simpson-Mazzoli immigration law passed 20 years ago promised the same things. Guess what? Teddy Kennedy lied just like he did at Chappaquiddick.

The fact is, Bush failed to secure our borders. Kennedy and McCain failed to abide by their oaths of office. As Kennedy drove the car over a bridge, he killed only one woman. Today, he's about to kill an entire civilization. (FW)

And this raises another question: Who has been running the government for the last six years? Why do we think anything will change and that the law will now suddenly be enforced? Over the last six years, the three recently arrested New Jersey terrorists who had been here illegally for 23 years had a total of 75 charges by the local police, and yet not once was our immigration enforcement infrastructure able to identify that they were here illegally. And now we are told that with the new comprehensive immigration bill, we will start to enforce the law against those have come here illegally after Jan. 1, 2007.

Under the proposed law, will local, state and federal officials really try to distinguish between those who came to the U.S. illegally prior to Jan. 1, 2007 (eligible under the proposed law for amnesty), and those who have arrived here illegally -- or those who overstay their visas -- after Jan. 1, 2007 (not eligible for the proposed amnesty)? The case of the 75 prior interactions with police of the Fort Dix terrorists demonstrates that we currently are incapable of identifying people here illegally. If 12 to 20 million are amnestied, who is seriously going to try and distinguish between the old illegal and the new illegal?

5. This Is a Fight for America's Future: Your senator needs to understand that this is the key fight over America's future and returning to a law-abiding, effectively enforced, serious government worthy of the American people. Let them know they can be with the vast majority of Americans and kill the bill or they can side with the special interests and try to ram through this extraordinarily destructive bill.

There you have it from a Washington inside-the-beltway shyster himself. If a shyster can spell it out, wow, what a concept! I've been saying the same thing for a decade.

At the very least, if that bill passes with Bush's Kervorkian mission to kill this nation, and as he said, "pass this product," we will see this country bleed to death and overdose on legal and illegal immigrants from a line that never ends. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation said, "This bill will cost the American taxpayer $2.3 trillion if it's only 12 million." It'll add two million legal immigrants annually, 400,000 Z-visas, 380,000 annual anchor babies, unending chain migration and swell the ranks of the poor into the millions. Its final "product" will add 100 million people to the United States by 2040. (Source: Fogel/Martin 2006, U.S. Population Projections)

This bill, 33 years hence, will prove certain mortality of America.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

The Big Thaw

From Greenland to Antarctica, the world is losing its ice faster than anyone thought possible. Can humans slow the melting?
:From National Geographic:

Even in better times, the Chacaltaya ski area was no competition for Aspen. Set in a bleak valley high in the Andes mountains of Bolivia, it offered a half-mile (one kilometer) swoop downhill, a precarious ride back up on a rope tow, and coca-leaf tea for altitude headaches. At 17,250 feet (5,260 meters), after all, Chacaltaya was the highest ski area in the world. "It gave us a lot of glory," says Walter Laguna, the president of Bolivia's mountain club. "We organized South American championships—with Chile, with Argentina, with Colombia."

The glory days are over. Skiing at this improbable spot depended on a small glacier that made a passable ski run when Bolivia's wet season dusted it with snow. The glacier was already shrinking when the ski area opened in 1939. But in the past decade, it's gone into a death spiral.

By last year all that remained were three patches of gritty ice, the largest just a couple of hundred yards (200 meters) across. The rope tow traversed boulder fields. Laguna insists that skiing will go on. Perhaps the club can make artificial snow, he says; perhaps it can haul in slabs of ice to mend the glacier. But in the long run, he knows, Chacaltaya is history. "The process is irreversible. Global warming will continue."

From the high mountains to the vast polar ice sheets, the world is losing its ice faster than anyone thought possible. Even scientists who had monitored Chacaltaya since 1991 thought it would hold out for a few more years. It's no surprise that glaciers are melting as emissions from cars and industry warm the climate. But lately, the ice loss has outstripped the upward creep of global temperatures.

Scientists are finding that glaciers and ice sheets are surprisingly touchy. Instead of melting steadily, like an ice cube on a summer day, they are prone to feedbacks, when melting begets more melting and the ice shrinks precipitously. At Chacaltaya, for instance, the shrinking glacier exposed dark rocks, which sped up its demise by soaking up heat from the sun. Other feedbacks are shriveling bigger mountain glaciers ahead of schedule and sending polar ice sheets slipping into the ocean.

Most glaciers in the Alps could be gone by the end of the century, Glacier National Park's namesake ice by 2030. The small glaciers sprinkled through the Andes and Himalaya have a few more decades at best. And the prognosis for the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica? No one knows, if only because the turn for the worse has been so sudden. Eric Rignot, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory who has measured a doubling in ice loss from Greenland over the past decade, says: "We see things today that five years ago would have seemed completely impossible, extravagant, exaggerated."

The fate of many mountain glaciers is already sealed. To keep skiing alive in Bolivia, Walter Laguna will need to find a bigger, higher ice field. And the millions of people in countries like Bolivia, Peru, and India who now depend on meltwater from mountain glaciers for irrigation, drinking, and hydropower could be left high and dry. Meanwhile, if global warming continues unabated, the coasts could drown. If vulnerable parts of the ice that blankets Greenland and Antarctica succumb, rising seas could flood hundreds of thousands of square miles—much of Florida, Bangladesh, the Netherlands—and displace tens of millions of people.

The temperature threshold for drastic sea-level rise is near, but many scientists think we still have time to stop short of it, by sharply cutting back consumption of climate-warming coal, oil, and gas. Few doubt, however, that another 50 years of business as usual will take us beyond a point of no return.

ANCIENT CORAL HEADS, white and dead, record an earlier time when the climate warmed and the seas rose. Found just inland in the Florida Keys, Bermuda, and the Bahamas, they date from roughly 130,000 years ago, before the last ice age. These corals grew just below the sea surface, and are now marooned well above it. When they flourished, sea level must have been 15 to 20 feet (five to six meters) higher—which means that much of the water now in Greenland's ice was sloshing in the oceans.

All it took to release that water was a few degrees of warming. Climate back then had a different driver: not fossil-fuel emissions but changes in Earth's tilt in space and its path around the sun, which warmed summers in the far North by three to five degrees Celsius (5° to 9°F) compared with today. At the rate the Arctic is now warming, those temperatures could be back soon—"by mid-century, no problem," says Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, who has studied the ancient climate. "There's just unbelievable warming in the Arctic. It's going much faster than anyone thought it could or would."

Computer models that forecast how ice sheets will react to the warming tend to predict a sluggish response—a few thousand years for them to melt, shrink, and catch up to the reality of a warmer world. If the models are right, rising seas are a distant threat.

Yet what is happening on the Greenland ice sheet is anything but leisurely. For the past 15 years, Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado at Boulder has spent each spring monitoring the ice from a camp deep in the interior. Back again in the coastal village of Ilulissat last summer, the Swiss-born climate researcher, lean and weathered from wind and glacial glare, sits with colleagues in a waterfront hotel, waiting out fog that has grounded their helicopter. "Things are changing," he says. "We see it all over."

Offshore, flotillas of icebergs drift silvery in the half-light—tangible evidence of the change. Their voyage began nearby in a deep fjord, where a glacier called Jakobshavn Isbræ flows to the sea.

Ice seems rock hard when you crunch an ice cube or slip on a frozen puddle. But when piled in a great mass, ice oozes like slow, cold taffy. On Greenland, it flows outward from the heart of the ice sheet, a dome of ice the size of the Gulf of Mexico, and either peters out on land or follows fast-flowing ice streams all the way to the ocean. Four miles (six kilometers) wide and several thousand feet thick, Jakobshavn is an icy Amazon, disgorging more ice than any other Greenland glacier.

World oil supplies are going to run out faster than exspected, say scientists.

World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies will start to run out in four years' time.
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007

Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.

BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to show that the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once again pushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry.

However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives.

According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves.

Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said: "It's quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone."

Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of oil majors including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005. Even when you factor in the more difficult to extract heavy oil, deep sea reserves, polar regions and liquid taken from gas, the peak will come as soon as 2011, he says.

This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.

"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint. When peak oil comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps because of climate change policies as from production peaking."

In recent years the once-considerable gap between demand and supply has narrowed. Last year that gap all but disappeared. The consequences of a shortfall would be immense. If consumption begins to exceed production by even the smallest amount, the price of oil could soar above $100 a barrel. A global recession would follow.

Jeremy Leggett, like Dr Campbell, is a geologist-turned conservationist whose book Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis brought " peak oil" theory to a wider audience. He compares industry and government reluctance to face up to the impending end of oil, to climate change denial.

"It reminds me of the way no one would listen for years to scientists warning about global warming," he says. "We were predicting things pretty much exactly as they have played out. Then as now we were wondering what it would take to get people to listen."

In 1999, Britain's oil reserves in the North Sea peaked, but for two years after this became apparent, Mr Leggett claims, it was heresy for anyone in official circles to say so. "Not meeting demand is not an option. In fact, it is an act of treason," he says.

One thing most oil analysts agree on is that depletion of oil fields follows a predictable bell curve. This has not changed since the Shell geologist M King Hubbert made a mathematical model in 1956 to predict what would happen to US petroleum production. The Hubbert Curveshows that at the beginning production from any oil field rises sharply, then reaches a plateau before falling into a terminal decline. His prediction that US production would peak in 1969 was ridiculed by those who claimed it could increase indefinitely. In the event it peaked in 1970 and has been in decline ever since.

In the 1970s Chris Skrebowski was a long-term planner for BP. Today he edits the Petroleum Review and is one of a growing number of industry insiders converting to peak theory. "I was extremely sceptical to start with," he now admits. "We have enough capacity coming online for the next two-and-a-half years. After that the situation deteriorates."

What no one, not even BP, disagrees with is that demand is surging. The rapid growth of China and India matched with the developed world's dependence on oil, mean that a lot more oil will have to come from somewhere. BP's review shows that world demand for oil has grown faster in the past five years than in the second half of the 1990s. Today we consume an average of 85 million barrels daily. According to the most conservative estimates from the International Energy Agency that figure will rise to 113 million barrels by 2030.

Two-thirds of the world's oil reserves lie in the Middle East and increasing demand will have to be met with massive increases in supply from this region.

BP's Statistical Review is the most widely used estimate of world oil reserves but as Dr Campbell points out it is only a summary of highly political estimates supplied by governments and oil companies.

As Dr Campbell explains: "When I was the boss of an oil company I would never tell the truth. It's not part of the game."

A survey of the four countries with the biggest reported reserves - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait - reveals major concerns. In Kuwait last year, a journalist found documents suggesting the country's real reserves were half of what was reported. Iran this year became the first major oil producer to introduce oil rationing - an indication of the administration's view on which way oil reserves are going.

Sadad al-Huseini knows more about Saudi Arabia's oil reserves than perhaps anyone else. He retired as chief executive of the kingdom's oil corporation two years ago, and his view on how much Saudi production can be increased is sobering. "The problem is that you go from 79 million barrels a day in 2002 to 84.5 million in 2004. You're leaping by two to three million [barrels a day]" each year, he told The New York Times. "That's like a whole new Saudi Arabia every couple of years. It can't be done indefinitely."

The importance of black gold

* A reduction of as little as 10 to 15 per cent could cripple oil-dependent industrial economies. In the 1970s, a reduction of just 5 per cent caused a price increase of more than 400 per cent.

* Most farming equipment is either built in oil-powered plants or uses diesel as fuel. Nearly all pesticides and many fertilisers are made from oil.

* Most plastics, used in everything from computers and mobile phones to pipelines, clothing and carpets, are made from oil-based substances.

* Manufacturing requires huge amounts of fossil fuels. The construction of a single car in the US requires, on average, at least 20 barrels of oil.

* Most renewable energy equipment requires large amounts of oil to produce.

* Metal production - particularly aluminium - cosmetics, hair dye, ink and many common painkillers all rely on oil.

Alternative sources of power


There are still an estimated 909 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide, enough to last at least 155 years. But coal is a fossil fuel and a dirty energy source that will only add to global warming.

Natural gas

The natural gas fields in Siberia, Alaska and the Middle East should last 20 years longer than the world's oil reserves but, although cleaner than oil, natural gas is still a fossil fuel that emits pollutants. It is also expensive to extract and transport as it has to be liquefied.

Hydrogen fuel cells

Hydrogen fuel cells would provide us with a permanent, renewable, clean energy source as they combine hydrogen and oxygen chemically to produce electricity, water and heat. The difficulty, however, is that there isn't enough hydrogen to go round and the few clean ways of producing it are expensive.


Ethanol from corn and maize has become a popular alternative to oil. However, studies suggest ethanol production has a negative effect on energy investment and the environment because of the space required to grow what we need.

Renewable energy

Oil-dependent nations are turning to renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar and wind power to provide an alternative to oil but the likelihood of renewable sources providing enough energy is slim.


Fears of the world's uranium supply running out have been allayed by improved reactors and the possibility of using thorium as a nuclear fuel. But an increase in the number of reactors across the globe would increase the chance of a disaster and the risk of dangerous substances getting into the hands of terrorists.

UN chief 'bans free speech' - staff

UN chief 'bans free speech' - staff
Submitted by Canada IFP on Thu, 2007-06-14 09:00.Global | News

United Nations staff expressed their anger at an order by the Secretary General prohibiting them from speaking to the press following the leaking of a confidential document related to Middle East which pained the the United States in negative light.

But Ban Ki-moon's office denied that he was treading on the freedom of speech of UN staff, and claimed that the prohibitions applied to specific cases.

"Once there are policy decisions that are taken from these policy papers, then you are made aware of it," Michèle Montas, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General told journalists referring to the de Soto report. "You are told about them. But there is a process of decision-making, which is not part of the public domain, which is normal."

But a reporter pointed out that the Secretary General's note only stated "staff should refrain from giving sensitive information to the press," and made no mention of any specific documents.

When asked whether or not the Secretary-General believes that on these issues of public interest the press has no right to know what’s being discussed, and angry spokesperson shouted at the reporter that Ban Ki-moon does believe in free speech.

"Well, of course the press has a right to know what’s being discussed," she said. "The press has a right to know what is being decided, essentially."

But UN staff member, who can speak only under the condition of anonymity given the Secretary-General's new directive, told Press Esc that they were not happy about the way Ban Ki-moon is trying to gag them, and promised to keep leaking news to the press.

"He's a pathetic lackey of the US who is dancing to the tune of the Bush administration," the staff member said. "He knows we are not happy about the situation, so he's trying to gag us. But don't worry. We'll keep leaking information to the press. We'll not stop blowing the whistle."

Police State Assault: Where is our sense of outrage?


By: Tom Rose

As I write, there is an on-going tragedy taking place. Heavily armed, camouflaged federal marshals, state police, and local police are laying siege on the home of Ed and Elaine Brown in Plainfield, New Hampshire.

A number of thoughts cross my mind:

Is this a microcosm replay of the mass police-state murder by the FBI at Waco, Texas (1993)? or of a similar Federal assault on Randy and Vicki Weaver’s home in Ruby Ridge, Idaho (1992) in which Vicki was murdered? Or both? What is the real reason behind this assault? Is it true that Ed and Elaine Brown are really law breakers, as the Feds claim? Should they peacefully surrender as the federal marshal demands? Or, are Ed and Elaine bravely engaging in a battle for freedom that every red-blooded American should also be actively participating in?

If you are like the large majority of Americans, you no doubt suffer from an on-going, nation-wide problem – the problem of news blackout combined with official disinformation. In my home we don’t subscribe to standard news media publications, nor do we listen to the so-called "news" broadcasted over the radio or television networks. We get most pertinent news over the as-yet uncontrolled internet and from carefully selected "politically incorrect" publications. The result is that we find ourselves always up to date on crucial issues, and we have factual information on which to make decisions. My purpose in writing about this on-going police-state assault at the Browns’ home is to bring to light some very important facts that are unknown by most Americans.

When the Browns’ case of "failure to pay income taxes" went to court, they did not have one chance in ten thousand of winning. Why? Because the cards were already stacked against them! How so? There are a number of reasons:

First of all, our American courts have been quietly stolen from the people because the people are no longer in control of them. Why not? Because jury members are now denied their historic right to judge both the facts and the law. This historic point of law, which came to America from Britain, is known as Jury Nullification. It reserves to juries the power to declare a defendant "innocent" if they believe the law is being applied unjustly or too harshly – or if the jury members during their deliberations find any reason to question the law. In effect, with jury nullification, the law is always open for question: Is the law too complicated for ordinary citizens to understand? Is the law unfairly applied to ensnare "little fish" while the "big fish" are allowed to escape? And, in the particular case of the so-called "income tax law," was the Sixteenth Amendment properly ratified, as it was declared to be by Secretary of State Philander Knox in February of 1913? [Note: It was not! See: The Law That Never Was, by Bill Benson.]

Readers can very well understand that court judges especially, but also attorneys, who are subservient members of the court, are frightened by the very term Jury Nullification! Why? Because it threatens their monopoly control of what was meant to be the People’s Court. I mention this because it is very important for us to understand something: Our American court system belongs to the people. Judges only preside in court. It is much more important for the reign of freedom in America that the jury be in a position to judge the law than for the judge to do so! Our once easy-to-understand system of Common Law has been insidiously wrested from the people through development of the Universal Commercial Code. Under the U.C.C. (with the "yellow fringed flag" that is posted in the courtroom), our court system has become a quagmire of complicated legalistic protocol that ordinary people cannot navigate in. The result is that most individuals are forced to hire high-priced attorneys who are trained in law school how to follow the complicated court procedures.

It is this kind of court that the Browns were ensnared in and which they refused to attend to receive their "sentencing" after being judged "guilty" by the jury. But remember this: The jury had been carefully instructed by the judge that they were limited to consider only "the facts" of the case; and only he was wise enough and smart enough to consider the all-important matter of "the law."

Let me digress to make a point: Not long ago I was invited to serve on the jury at the County Court House in Mercer, Pennsylvania. While the process of choosing /rejecting jurors was going on, the judge called me to the bench. I had written on my juror card that I believed that jurors have the right and duty to consider "both the facts and the law." Neither the judge nor the attorneys like that, so the judge asked if I would be willing to forego my claim. I stated that I would not, and that I would explain why if the judge was so inclined. He agreed, so this is what I told him:

Sir, we live in the State of Pennsylvania which was founded by William Penn. Years before William Penn came to America, he was arrested in Britain for preaching the Gospel of Christ, which at that time was an illegal act for an unlicensed person to do; and the penalty was death. But some members of the jury felt that the death penalty for preaching the Gospel was too severe, and they refused to render a "guilty" verdict, even though they were subjected to severe threats of punishment. In short, they applied the legal principle of "Jury Nullification." And the result was that William Penn survived the ordeal to found this State of Pennsylvania. Thus, for many, many years juries in America were recognized as having the power and the right to consider both the facts and the law in performing their court duties.

When I finished, the judge replied with a slight show of irritation, "Well, today in the State of Pennsylvania, it is the judge who considers the law, not the jury!" For the rest of the week, every time my name came up to serve on a jury, the judge smiled at me and pleasantly said, "Mr. Rose, we will excuse you!" Maxim: "Those also serve who stand and wait!"

But the matter of "Jury Nullification" isn’t all that we need to be concerned about!:

The fact that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, and is therefore not legally in force, has been proven by Mr. Benson’s masterly research in the 48 contiguous State Capitals which made up the Union in 1913; but the courts refuse to consider "the facts." Instead, they declare the issue to be a political matter for the Congress to handle. But our evasive politicians say that the Amendment question is something the Judicial Department should handle. This confusing "merry-go-round" thus opens the door to yet another confusing matter about which the large majority of Americans are completely uninformed:

Here we come across the indisputable fact that the IRS Code is purposely riddled through with dubiously confusing terms in different sections of the code concerning who is legally subject to filing a 1040 tax return, and who is legally subject to paying the alleged income tax! Confusing? You bet! I have attended "income tax seminars" in which lecturers have meticulously shown conflicting and confusing terms contained in the IRS Codes. One lecturer, whom I will not name, successfully defended many clients in court against IRS "judgments" by explaining to juries the internal contradictions in the IRS Codes. He was able to "best" the IRS agents every time!* But since then judges now make a standard practice of refusing to allow such pertinent testimony in court. Questions: How can a person get a fair trial in a tax court if such factual information is perniciously disallowed by tyrannical [law-breaking] judges? Does this help us to understand why the Browns refused to appear at court for sentencing? You bet it does! When our courts become lawless, what else is to be done? [*Note: The gentleman I referred to above is now in a federal prison on what clearly appears to be trumped-up charges, which is reminiscent of the trumped-up charges made against Congressman George Hansen of Idaho, who was elected to serve seven terms, in office. Vindictive treatment of Mr. Hansen by federal marshals who illegally and unconstitutionally forced him on a constant series of "diesel runs" from prison to prison destroyed his health. He was later declared innocent by the U.S. Supreme Court! Yes, we are dealing with nasty people!]

But, there is still more!:

Few Americans are aware of the disturbing fact that the IRS has secret off-budget "slush funds" that IRS agents can use to make "cash awards" to certain entities who assist the IRS in securing court judgments against IRS targets! How many judges, juries, and others have been "bought off" by the IRS, and what amounts of money have been illicitly paid to such crooked judges and other persons will never be known! But this brings us to this all-important question: How is it possible, in the face of such systemic corruption in our income tax system, our legal system, and our judicial system, for a person to get a fair trial in America today?

Answer: It’s almost impossible!

Turning back to the Brown case. Ed and Elaine Brown say, "Show us the law, and we will pay!" But the IRS has not shown them the alleged law that supposedly requires the Browns to file and pay an income tax. So the court will not force the IRS to do so because the judge knows that the IRS is incapable of doing so. This explains why the Browns claim the Feds have no legal jurisdiction to charge them regarding a law that does not exist. I, for one, believe they are right!

Has the judge been bought off? Who knows? Cash funds are hard to trace. "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!" was the introductory opening of a scary evening radio show [before television] that we used to listen to when I was a little boy. If the Shadow were alive today, what well-hidden truths might he reveal today? The Browns claim that they are fighting for the rights of all Americans, ad I believe this too! The question is: When will enough stalwart Americans join them in the fight for freedom so that freedom can be restored in our once-great republic?

In closing, let me quote the following which came to me via

While Proud US citizens and New Hampshire residents Ed and Elaine Brown, who have refused to pay unlawful incomes taxes, currently have federal SWAT teams hiding in the woods around their property with armored vehicles and helicopters ready to conduct a military style raid on them, 12 million illegal aliens who have already violated the law are set to be given a total tax amnesty.

If US citizens do not pay taxes, which are unlawful anyway, an amnesty might enable them to avoid penalties and interest. However, they still have to pay any amount due in back axes. By contrast, the immigration reform bill [now in Congress] rewards each and every illegal alien with permanent US residence and totally erases any back payments.

The Feds can use guns, tanks, planes and drones against a peaceful, self-sustaining elderly couple who simply want to be left alone but they can’t manage to protect the borders and are getting ready to grant tax amnesty to millions of illegal aliens [Steve Watson].

What to do:

Think on these things, fellow Americans, and follow your heart! Also, ask God to protect the Browns and others who are fighting to restore freedom in America!

"Published originally at : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

The Lies About Immigration Amnesty

It’s Official The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun

It’s Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun

by Richard C. Cook

Global Research, June 14, 2007

Email this article to a friend.

It’s official. Mark your calendars. The crash of the U.S. economy has begun. It was announced the morning of Wednesday, June 13, 2007, by economic writers Steven Pearlstein and Robert Samuelson in the pages of the Washington Post, one of the foremost house organs of the U.S. monetary elite.

Pearlstein’s column was titled, “The Takeover Boom, About to Go Bust” and concerned the extraordinary amount of debt vs. operating profits of companies currently subject to leveraged buyouts.

In language remarkably alarmist for the usually ultra-bland pages of the Post, Pearlstein wrote, “It is impossible to predict when the magic moment will be reached and everyone finally realizes that the prices being paid for these companies, and the debt taken on to support the acquisitions, are unsustainable. When that happens, it won't be pretty. Across the board, stock prices and company valuations will fall. Banks will announce painful write-offs, some hedge funds will close their doors, and private-equity funds will report disappointing returns. Some companies will be forced into bankruptcy or restructuring.”

Further, “Falling stock prices will cause companies to reduce their hiring and capital spending while governments will be forced to raise taxes or reduce services, as revenue from capital gains taxes declines. And the combination of reduced wealth and higher interest rates will finally cause consumers to pull back on their debt-financed consumption. It happened after the junk-bond and savings-and-loan collapses of the late 1980s. It happened after the tech and telecom bust of the late '90s. And it will happen this time.”

Samuelson’s column, “The End of Cheap Credit,” left the door slightly ajar in case the collapse is not quite so severe. He wrote of rising interest rates, “As the price of money increases, borrowing and the economy might weaken. The deep slump in housing could worsen. We could also discover that the long period of cheap credit has left a nasty residue.”

Other writers with less prestigious platforms than the Post have been talking about an approaching financial bust for a couple of years. Among them has been economist Michael Hudson, author of an article on the housing bubble titled, “The New Road to Serdom” in the May 2006 issue of Harper’s. Hudson has been speaking in interviews of a “break in the chain” of debt payments leading to a “long, slow economic crash,” with “asset deflation,” “mass defaults on mortgages,” and a “huge asset grab” by the rich who are able to protect their cash through money laundering and hedging with foreign currency bonds.

Among those poised to profit from the crash is the Carlyle Group, the equity fund that includes the Bush family and other high-profile investors with insider government connections. A January 2007 memorandum to company managers from founding partner William E. Conway, Jr., recently appeared which stated that, when the current “liquidity environment”—i.e., cheap credit—ends, “the buying opportunity will be a once in a lifetime chance.”

The fact that the crash is now being announced by the Post shows that it is a done deal. The Bilderbergers, or whomever it is that the Post reports to, have decided. It lets everyone know loud and clear that it’s time to batten down the hatches, run for cover, lay in two years of canned food, shield your assets, whatever.

Those left holding the bag will be the ordinary people whose assets are loaded with debt, such as tens of millions of mortgagees, millions of young people with student loans that can never be written off due to the “reformed” 2005 bankruptcy law, or vast numbers of workers with 401(k)s or other pension plans that are locked into the stock market.

In other words, it sounds eerily like 2000-2002 except maybe on a much larger scale. Then it was “only” the tenth worse bear market in history, but over a trillion dollars in wealth simply vanished. What makes today’s instance seem particularly unfair is that the preceding recovery that is now ending—the “jobless” one—was so anemic.

Neither Perlstein nor Samuelson gets to the bottom of the crisis, though they, like Conway of the Carlyle Group, point to the end of cheap credit. But interest rates are set by people who run central banks and financial institutions. They may be influenced by “the market,” but the market is controlled by people with money who want to maximize their profits.

Key to what is going on is that the Federal Reserve is refusing to follow the pattern set during the long reign of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in responding to shaky economic trends with lengthy infusions of credit as he did during the bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of 2001-2005.

This time around, Greenspan’s successor, Ben Bernanke, is sitting tight. With the economy teetering on the brink, the Fed is allowing rates to remain steady. The Fed claims their policy is due to the danger of rising “core inflation.” But this cannot be true. The biggest consumer item, houses and real estate, is tanking. Officially, unemployment is low, but mainly due to low-paying service jobs. Commodities have edged up, including food and gasoline, but that’s no reason to allow the entire national economy to be submerged.

So what is really happening? Actually, it’s simple. The difference today is that China and other large investors from abroad, including Middle Eastern oil magnates, are telling the U.S. that if interest rates come down, thereby devaluing their already-sliding dollar portfolios further, they will no longer support with their investments the bloated U.S. trade and fiscal deficits.

Of course we got ourselves into this quandary by shipping our manufacturing to China and other cheap-labor markets over the last generation. “Dollar hegemony” is backfiring. In fact China is using its American dollars to replace the International Monetary Fund as a lender to developing nations in Africa and elsewhere. As an additional insult, China now may be dictating a new generation of economic decline for the American people who are forced to buy their products at Wal-Mart by maxing out what is left of our available credit card debt.

About a year ago, a former Reagan Treasury official, now a well-known cable TV commentator, said that China had become “America’s bank” and commented approvingly that “it’s cheaper to print money than make cars anymore.” Ha ha.

It is truly staggering that none of the “mainstream” political candidates from either party has attacked this subject on the campaign trail. All are heavily funded by the financier elite who will profit no matter how bad the U.S. economy suffers. Every candidate except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich treats the Federal Reserve like the fifth graven image on Mount Rushmore. And even the so-called progressives are silent. The weekend before the Perlstein/ Samuelson articles came out, there was a huge progressive conference in Washington, D.C., called “Taming the Corporate Giant.” Not a single session was devoted to financial issues.

What is likely to happen? I’d suggest four possible scenarios:

Acceptance by the U.S. population of diminished prosperity and a declining role in the world. Grin and bear it. Live with your parents into your 40s instead of your 30s. Work two or three part-time jobs on the side, if you can find them. Die young if you lose your health care. Declare bankruptcy if you can, or just walk away from your debts until they bring back debtor’s prison like they’ve done in Dubai. Meanwhile, China buys more and more U.S. properties, homes, and businesses, as economists close to the Federal Reserve have suggested. If you’re an enterprising illegal immigrant, have fun continuing to jack up the underground economy, avoid business licenses and taxes, and rent out group houses to your friends.
Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the chops. If they don’t want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes?
Maybe we’ll finally have a revolution either from the right or the center involving martial law, suspension of the Bill of Rights, etc., combined with some kind of military or forced-labor dictatorship. We’re halfway there anyway. Forget about a revolution from the left. They wouldn’t want to make anyone mad at them for being too radical.
Could there ever be a real try at reform, maybe even an attempt just to get back to the New Deal? Since the causes of the crisis are monetary, so would be the solutions. The first step would be for the Federal Reserve System to be abolished as a bank of issue and a transformation of the nation’s credit system into a genuine public utility by the federal government. This way we could rebuild our manufacturing and public infrastructure and develop an income assurance policy that would benefit everyone.

The latter is the only sensible solution. There are monetary reformers who know how to do it if anyone gave them half a chance.

Richard C. Cook is the author of “Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age.” A retired federal analyst, his career included work with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, and NASA, followed by twenty-one years with the U.S. Treasury Department. He is now a Washington, D.C.-based writer and consultant. His book “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform,” will be published later this year. His website is at

Richard C. Cook is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Richard C. Cook
© Copyright Richard C. Cook, Global Research, 2007

Browns To Hold National Press Conference

Browns To Hold National Press Conference
Randy Weaver to join tax protestors on Monday

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, June 14, 2007

Tax Protestors Ed and Elaine Brown have exclusively revealed today that they are to hold a press conference at their home in Plainfield New Hampshire this coming Monday.

Joining them in support and as a freelance reporter documenting the event for Infowars and the GCN radio network will be Ruby Ridge standoff survivor Randy Weaver.

Weaver was shot himself and lost his wife and young son in 1992 when the federal government brutally killed them when they refused to leave their property. He is showing incredible bravery and patriotism by putting himself back into a very similar situation.

Weaver has said that he wishes to diffuse the situation and prevent any bloodshed.

A press conference will be held with Weaver and the Browns this Monday at 2pm EDT, national and local press have been welcomed by the Browns.

The Browns situation has today been covered in the national press by CBS and AP, who have again described the Brown home as a "fortified concrete compound". Does the Brown home look like a fortified compound to you?

They also describe the Browns as "holed up" despite the fact that their home has no security gates or fences of any kind and is completely open to anyone who wishes to just walk in at any time.

U.S. Marshal Steve Monier acknowledged Wednesday that waiting out the Browns could take months, but he said time was on authorities' side. He said he hoped prison would seem like an agreeable option for the Browns after a summer without air conditioning and possibly a winter without heat, the report states.

The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.

"We have seized their phone and Internet service, and two days ago, we cut their power," Monier said. "It's a continuing effort to move them along to understand they need to do the right thing, and this is to surrender to us."

Monier has said there are no federal agents in Plainfield or surveillance teams in camouflage watching the fortified home at 401 Center of Town Road, despite it being proved that agents were lurking in the trees when they were discovered by dog walker Danny Riley who states that he was shot at and tasered and now describes himself as a "nervous wreck". Riley says that he is still being threatened for revealing that the FBI are involved in the case.

The report as well as another Union Leader piece state that the US marshals office was swamped with callers last week expressing support for the Browns after "a website" (i.e. urged readers to make a stand.

Click here to listen to Randy Weaver and Elaine Brown on the Alex Jones Show today.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Neocon “Scholars” Call for Dismembering Bill of Rights

Neocon “Scholars” Call for Dismembering Bill of Rights
Kurt Nimmo
Tuesday June 12th 2007, 1:31 pm

Imagine my surprise. A “guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution,” Benjamin Wittes, wants to gut the Second Amendment. Wittes told CNSNews “that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.”

Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, however, did not limit his comments to the Second Amendment, suggesting instead that much of the Bill of Rights has “no contemporary relevance.” As an example, Barnett cited the Fourth Amendment. “Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn’t a danger of terrorism and mass murder.” According to the professor, the Fourth Amendment is “archaic [and] we don’t need it anymore.”

Of course, this sort of authoritarian nonsense should be expected, as we have allowed the government to be hijacked by a gaggle of neocons and their neoliberal kissing cousins who favor the sort of government operating in China to a constitutionally limited republic of the sort we had until 1791 when the Federalist Alexander Hamilton set-up the first central bank in America modeled after the Bank of England. In essence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have languished ever since and the neocons are now simply doing away with all pretense, not that most Americans will notice—so long as they remain “free” to shop, consume, and watch American Idol.

Incidentally, it is amusing CNSNews characterizes the Brookings Institution as “center-left,” a designation deemed to give the impression the place is crawling with Democrats and fence-sitting “progressives.” Never mind such labels are worthless, as the transnational plutocrats and globalists in control of the horizontal and vertical consider such appellations of little use beyond hypnotizing the commoners.

In fact, Brookings is strictly a neocon “think tank,” connected at the hip with the American Enterprise Institute (where Bush gets his “minds,” that is to say psychopaths) and the Wharton Business School, allegedly fronted by the Tavistock Institute. In addition, Brookings hosts the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, founded by Haim Saban, the billionaire former Israeli who proudly declares: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Saban is a Democrat—thus demonstrating you can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans without a scorecard.

Finally, it should come as no surprise neocons and neolibs want to do away with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, even though these founding documents are now little more than a historical facade, as the founding concepts enshrined in the documents were dismantled and floated down the river by bankers and the financial elite more than two centuries ago. Neocons have no use for the First, Second, Fourth or any other number of amendments, as they subscribe to the Führerprinzip, that is to say the leadership or Führer principle based on the Auctoritas of ancient Rome, as spelled out by Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist who elevated the concept of a dictatorial Reichspräsident, a concept embraced by neocons far and wide.

Thus it makes perfect sense the boy wonder of the neocons, Bill Kristol, would declare: “Maybe we should have Supreme Leader Bush. I kind of like the sound of that.”

Blair Calls For Chinese Style Net Controls In the UK

You think that is bad, wait for what will happen here in the US before Bush is to leave. Now Ron Paul is making a shift in the US. The secret government planned to stall him in the debates, it has not worked, and now they will start of plans for mutable future potentials.

The European Union, an Asian Union, and north American Union is right around the present. Will the populace bend to the queen?

The truth is lurched in the web of complexity, for the rabbit hole goes and goes.

When will collective Humanity realize our past, and who controls through the connection to the present. Soon the sane will see, just how many will be left after the thief, will then be for the sun to greet?

Wormhole away.........EA.

Blair Calls For Chinese Style Net Controls In the UK
Declares war on "pernicious conspiracy theory" media coverage

Prison Planet | June 12, 2007
Steve Watson

Related Article: Internet Doomsday Creeps Closer

Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair has savaged online media today in a speech in which he declared war on the free press by hinting at new restrictions on internet journalism and suggested that the media should be brought more into line with the government.

Blair complained that the media was too "feral" (i.e. not tamed by the government) and referring to online journalism stated:

"In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five."

This is an outright call for a crackdown on the free press. Blair is out in the open here saying the media is too independent of the government, he is admitting that the freedom with which the media, especially online, is now operating is hurting his government and its agenda.

Despite the fact that it is the government itself that has consistently lied to and refused to listen to the British people, Blair blamed the media for an undermining of trust in the government amongst the people and further accused the media of being responsible for a moral downturn in Britain.

"The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.'' Blair stated.

This is rich given the fact that when New Labour came into power in 1997 Blair's government quickly became masters of spin, using the media as a tool of hype to whip up a frenzy of positive attention towards itself.

Blair even admitted that his government readily did this and is to blame for what he now sees as a brutal backlash:

''We paid inordinate attention in the early days of New Labour to courting, assuaging, and persuading the media ....such an attitude ran the risk of fuelling the trends in communications that I am about to question.'' Blair stated.

So there you have it, the government used and spat out the media and now it doesn't like the fact that it is no longer trusted and is scrutinized as if under a microscope, especially by the independent and online media which does not pander to corporate masters.

Therefore Blair's solution is to bring in an online journalism regulator to decide what is "balanced" reporting and what is not. Such a move is exactly the kind of thing that has been witnessed in Communist China in an effort to crackdown on criticism of the government there.

Blair has recently been under the media microscope concerning the BAE cover up over Saudi arms dealing. Before that he was subject to scrutiny and twice questioned by police over the cash for honours scandal where peerages were handed out by the government in exchange for financial favours. No doubt these are the kind of "conspiracy theories" Mr Blair wishes the media to be unable to cover, along with the scores of lies he told in the lead up to the Iraq war.

Blair can whine and whine all day long but the fact is it is the openness with which his government has conducted its criminal actions and its own attempts to use the free press as a propaganda arm that has led to a surge in media scrutiny.

There is nothing he nor his elite masters can do to win this battle save shutting down the internet and free speech completely and risking revolution.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

September Clues

911 9/11 naked truth weird crazy animation drama movie science owned wtc iraq iran guantanamo us navy marines home binladen no planes tv fakery bush cheney rudolph giuliani hillary clinton barack obama fox cnn abc cbs

ZEITGEIST, The Movie - All The World's A Stage

Henry Ford and the Nazis

Henry Ford and the Nazis

I would like to outline the importance attached by high [Nazi] officials to respect the desire and maintain the good will of "Ford," and by "Ford" I mean your father, yourself, and the Ford Motor Company, Dearborn. (Josiah E. Dubois, Jr, Generals in Grey Suits, London: The Bodley Head, 1953, p. 250.)

Henry Ford is often seen to be something of an enigma among the Wall Street elite. For many years in the 20s and 30s Ford was popularly known as an enemy of the financial establishment. Ford accused Morgan and others of using war and revolution as a road to profit and their influence in social systems as a means of personal advancement. By 1938 Henry Ford, in his public statements, had divided financiers into two classes: those who profited from war and used their influence to bring about war for profit, and the "constructive" financiers. Among the latter group he now included the House of Morgan. During a 1938 New York Times interview1 Ford averred that:

Somebody once said that sixty families have directed the destinies of the nation. It might well be said that if somebody would focus the spotlight on twenty-five persons who handle the nation's finances, the world's real warmakers would be brought into bold relief.

The Times reporter asked Ford how he equated this assessment with his long-standing criticism of the House of Morgan, to which Ford replied:

There is a constructive and a destructive Wall Street. The House of Morgan represents the constructive. I have known Mr. Morgan for many years. He backed and supported Thomas Edison, who was also my good friend ....

After expounding on the evils of limited agricultural production — allegedly brought about by Wall Street — Ford continued,

... if these financiers had their way we'd be in a war now. They want war because they make money out of such conflict — out of the human misery that wars bring.

On the other hand, when we probe behind these public statements we find that Henry Ford and son Edsel Ford have been in the forefront of American businessmen who try to walk both sides of every ideological fence in search of profit. Using Ford's own criteria, the Fords are among the "destructive" elements.

It was Henry Ford who in the 1930s built the Soviet Union's first modern automobile plant (located at Gorki) and which in the 50s and 60s produced the trucks used by the North Vietnamese to carry weapons and munitions for use against Americans.2 At about the same time, Henry Ford was also the most famous of Hitler's foreign backers, and he was rewarded in the 1930s for this long-lasting support with the highest Nazi decoration for foreigners.

This Nazi favor aroused a storm of controversy in the United States and ultimately degenerated into an exchange of diplomatic notes between the German Government and the State Department. While Ford publicly protested that he did not like totalitarian governments, we find in practice that Ford knowingly profited from both sides of World War II — from French and German plants producing vehicles at a profit for the Wehrmacht, and from U.S. plants building vehicles at a profit for the U.S. Army.

Henry Ford's protestations of innocence suggest, as we shall see in this chapter, that he did not approve of Jewish financiers profiting from war (as some have), but if anti-Semitic Morgan3 and Ford profited from war that was acceptable, moral and "constructive."

Henry Ford: Hitler's First Foreign Backer

On December 20, 1922 the New York Times reported4 that automobile manufacturer Henry Ford was financing Adolph Hitler's nationalist and anti-Semitic movements in Munich. Simultaneously, the Berlin newspaper Berliner Tageblatt appealed to the American Ambassador in Berlin to investigate and halt Henry Ford's intervention into German domestic affairs. It was reported that Hitler's foreign backers had furnished a "spacious headquarters" with a "host of highly paid lieutenants and officials." Henry Ford's portrait was prominently displayed on the walls of Hitler's personal office:

The wall behind his desk in Hitler's private office is decorated with a large picture of Henry Ford. In the antechamber there is a large table covered with books, nearly all of which are a translation of a book written and published by Henry Ford.5

The same New York Times report commented that the previous Sunday Hitler had reviewed,

The so-called Storming Battalion.., 1,000 young men in brand new uniforms and armed with revolvers and blackjacks, while Hitler and his henchmen drove around in two powerful brand-new autos.

The Times made a clear distinction between the German monarchist parties and Hitler's anti-Semitic fascist party. Henry Ford, it was noted, ignored the Hohenzollern monarchists and put his money into the Hitlerite revolutionary movement.

These Ford funds were used by Hitler to foment the Bavarian rebellion. The rebellion failed, and Hitler was captured and subsequently brought to trial. In February 1923 at the trial, vice president Auer of the Bavarian Diet testified:

The Bavarian Diet has long had the information that the Hitler movement was partly financed by an American anti-Semitic chief, who is Henry Ford. Mr. Ford's interest in the Bavarian anti-Semitic movement began a year ago when one of Mr. Ford's agents, seeking to sell tractors, came in contact with Diedrich Eichart, the notorious Pan-German. Shortly after, Herr Eichart asked Mr. Ford's agent for financial aid. The agent returned to America and immediately Mr. Ford's money began coming to Munich.

Herr Hitler openly boasts of Mr. Ford's support and praises Mr. Ford as a great individualist and a great anti-Semite. A photograph of Mr. Ford hangs in Herr Hitler's quarters, which is the center of monarchist movement.6

Hitler received a mild and comfortable prison sentence for his Bavarian revolutionary activities. The rest from more active pursuits enabled him to write Mein Kampf. Henry Ford's book, The International Jew, earlier circulated by the Nazis, was translated by them into a dozen languages, and Hitler utilized sections of the book verbatim in writing Mein Kampf.7

We shall see later that Hitler's backing in the late 20s and early 30s came from the chemical, steel, and electrical industry cartels, rather than directly from individual industrialists. In 1928 Henry Ford merged his German assets with those of the I.G. Farben chemical cartel. A substantial holding, 40 percent of Ford Motor A.G. of Germany, was transferred to I.G. Farben; Carl Bosch of I.G. Farben became head of Ford A.G. Motor in Germany. Simultaneously, in the United States Edsel Ford joined the board of American I.G. Farben. (See Chapter Two.)

Henry Ford Receives a Nazi Medal

A decade later, in August 1938 — after Hitler had achieved power with the aid of the cartels — Henry Ford received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a Nazi decoration for distinguished foreigners. The New York Times reported it was the first time the Grand Cross had been awarded in the United States and was to celebrate Henry Ford's 75th birthday.8

The decoration raised a storm of criticism within Zionist circles in the U.S. Ford backed off to the extent of publicly meeting with Rabbi Leo Franklin of Detroit to express his sympathy for the plight of German Jews:

My acceptance of a medal from the German people [said Ford] does not, as some people seem to think, involve any sympathy on my part with naziism. Those who have known me for many years realize that anything that breeds hate is repulsive to me.9

The Nazi medal issue was picked up in a Cleveland speech by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes. Ickes criticized both Henry Ford and Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh for accepting Nazi medals. The curious part of the Ickes speech, made at a Cleveland Zionist Society banquet, was his criticism of "wealthy Jews" and their acquisition and use of wealth:

A mistake made by a non-Jewish millionaire reflects upon him alone, but a false step made by a Jewish man of wealth reflects upon his whole race. This is harsh and unjust, but it is a fact that must be faced.10

Perhaps Ickes was tangentially referring to the roles of the Warburgs in the I.G. Farben cartel: Warburgs were on the board of I.G. Farben in the U.S. and Germany. In 1938 the Warburgs were being ejected by the Nazis from Germany. Other German Jews, such as the Oppenheim bankers, made their peace with the Nazis and were granted "honorary Aryan status."

Ford Motor Company Assists the German War Effort

A post-war Congressional subcommittee investigating American support for the Nazi military effort described the manner in which the Nazis succeeded in obtaining U.S. technical and financial assistance as "quite fantastic.11 Among other evidence the Committee was shown a memorandum prepared in the offices of Ford-Werke A.G. on November 25, 1941, written by Dr. H. F. Albert to R. H. Schmidt, then president of the board of Ford-Werke A.G. The memo cited the advantages of having a majority of the German firm held by Ford Motor Company in Detroit. German Ford had been able to exchange Ford parts for rubber and critical war materials needed in 1938 and 1939 "and they would not have been able to do that if Ford had not been owned by the United States." Further, with a majority American interest German Ford would "more easily be able to step in and dominate the Ford holdings throughout Europe." It was even reported to the Committee that two top German Ford officials had been in a bitter personal feud about who was to control Ford of England, such "that one of them finally got up and left the room in disgust."

According to evidence presented to the Committee, Ford-Werke A.G. was technically transformed in the late 1930s into a German company. All vehicles and their parts were produced in Germany, by German workers using German materials under German direction and exported to European and overseas territories of the United States and Great Britain. Any needed foreign raw materials, rubber and nonferrous metals, were obtained through the American Ford Company. American influence had been more or less converted into a supporting position (Hilfsstellung) for the German Ford plants.

At the outbreak of the war Ford-Werke placed itself at the disposal of the Wehrmacht for armament production. It was assumed by the Nazis that as long as Ford-Werke A.G. had an American majority, it would be possible to bring the remaining European Ford companies under German influence — i.e., that of Ford-Werke A.G. — and so execute Nazi "Greater European" policies in the Ford plants in Amsterdam, Antwerp, Paris, Budapest, Bucharest, and Copenhagen:

A majority, even if only a small one, of Americans is essential for the transmittal of the newest American models, as well as American production and sales methods. With the abolition of the American majority, this advantage, as well as the intervention of the Ford Motor Company to obtain raw materials and exports, would be lost, and the German plant would practically only be worth its machine capacity.12

And, of course, this kind of strict neutrality, taking an international rather than a national viewpoint, had earlier paid off for Ford Motor Company in the Soviet Union, where Ford was held in high regard as the ultimate of technical and economic efficiency to be achieved by the Stak-hanovites.

In July 1942 word filtered back to Washington from Ford of France about Ford's activities on behalf of the German war effort in Europe. The incriminating information was promptly buried and even today only part of the known documentation can be traced in Washington.

We do know, however, that the U.S. Consul General in Algeria had possession of a letter from Maurice Dollfuss of French Ford — who claimed to be the first Frenchman to go to Berlin after the fall of France — to Edsel Ford about a plan by which Ford Motor could contribute to the Nazi war effort. French Ford was able to produce 20 trucks a day for the Wehrmacht, which [wrote Dollfuss] is better than,

... our less fortunate French competitors are doing. The reason is that our trucks are in very large demand by the German authorities and I believe that as long as the war goes on and at least for some period of time, all that we shall produce will be taken by the German authorities .... I will satisfy myself by telling you that... the attitude you have taken, together with your father, of strict neutrality, has been an invaluable asset for the production of your companies in Europe.13

Dollfuss disclosed that profits from this German business were already 1.6 million francs, and net profits for 1941 were no less than 58,000,000 francs — because the Germans paid promptly for Ford's output. On receipt of this news Edsel Ford cabled:

Delighted to hear you are making progress. Your letters most interesting. Fully realize great handicap you are working under. Hope you and family well. Regards.

s/ Edsel Ford14

Although there is evidence that European plants owned by Wall Street interests were not bombed by the U.S. Air Force in World War II, this restriction apparently did not reach the British Bombing Command. In March 1942 the Royal Air Force bombed the Ford plant at Poissy, France. A subsequent letter from Edsel Ford to Ford General Manager Sorenson about this RAF raid commented, "Photographs of the plant on fire were published in American newspapers but fortunately no reference was made to the Ford Motor Company.15 In any event, the Vichy government paid Ford Motor Company 38 million francs as compensation for damage done to the Poissy plant. This was not reported in the U.S. press and would hardly be appreciated by those Americans at war with Naziism. Dubois asserts that these private messages from Ford in Europe were passed to Edsel Ford by Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge Long. This was the same Secretary Long who one year later suppressed private messages through the State Department concerning the extermination of Jews in Europe. 16 Disclosure of those messages conceivably could have been used to assist those desperate people.

A U.S. Air Force bombing intelligence report written in 1943 noted that,

Principal wartime activities [of the Ford plant] are probably manufacture of light trucks and of spare parts for all the Ford trucks and cars in service in Axis Europe (including captured Russian Molotovs).16

The Russian Molotovs were of course manufactured by the Ford-built works at Gorki, Russia. In France during the war, passenger automobile production was entirely replaced by military vehicles and for this purpose three large additional buildings were added to the Poissy factory. The main building contained about 500 machine tools, "all imported from the United States and including a fair sprinkling of the more complex types, such as Gleason gear cutters, Bullard automatics and Ingersoll borers.17

Ford also extended its wartime activities into North Africa. In December 1941 a new Ford Company, Ford-Afrique, was registered in France and granted all the rights of the former Ford Motor Company, Ltd. of England in Algeria, Tunisia, French Morocco, French Equatorial, and French West Africa. North Africa was not accessible to British Ford so this new Ford Company — registered in German-occupied France — was organized to fill the gap. The directors were pro-Nazi and included Maurice Dollfuss (Edsel Ford's correspondent) and Roger Messis (described by the U.S. Algiers Consul General as "known to this office by repute as unscrupulous, is stated to be a 100 percent pro-German")18

The U.S. Consul General also reported that propaganda was common in Algiers about

... the collaboration of French-German-American capital and the questionable sincerity of the American war effort, [there] is already pointing an accusing finger at a transaction Which has been for long a subject of discussion in commercial circles.19

In brief, there is documentary evidence that Ford Motor Company worked on both sides of World War II. If the Nazi industrialists brought to trial at Nuremburg were guilty of crimes against mankind, then so must be their fellow collaborators in the Ford family, Henry and Edsel Ford. However, the Ford story was concealed by Washington — apparently like almost everything else that could touch upon the name and sustenance of the Wall Street financial elite.


1June 4, 1938, 2:2.

2A list of these Gorki vehicles and their model numbers is in Antony G. Sutton, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, (New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1973), Table 7-2, p. 125.

3The House of Morgan was known for its anti-Semitic views.

4Page 2, Column 8.


6Jonathan Leonard, The Tragedy of Henry Ford, (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1932), p. 208. Also see U.S. State Department Decimal File, National Archives Microcopy M 336, Roll 80, Document 862.00S/6, "Money sources of Hitler," a report from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin.

7On this see Keith Sward, The Legend of Henry Ford, (New York: Rinehart & Co, 1948), p. 139.

8New York Times, August l, 1938.

9Ibid., December 1, 1938, 12:2.

10Ibid., December 19, 1938, 5:3.

11Elimination of German Resources, p. 656.

12Elimination of German Resources, pp. 657-8.

13Josiah E. Dubois, Jr., Generals in Grey Suits, (London: The Bodley Head, 1958), p. 248.

14Ibid., p. 249.

15Ibid., p. 251.


17U.S. Army Air Force, Aiming point report No I.E.2, May 29, 1943.

18U.S. State Department Decimal File, 800/61o.1.


Monday, June 11, 2007

First-Ever 'Peacefulness' Ranking Launched; U.S. Scores Low

First-Ever 'Peacefulness' Ranking Launched; U.S. Scores Low
Nicole Olsen
OneWorld US
Sun., Jun. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jun 8 (OneWorld) - The first study to rank countries around the world according to their peacefulness and identify the drivers that create and sustain peace was released here last week.

Norway took the crown for most peaceful nation among the 121 surveyed by the Global Peace Index, followed closely by New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, and Japan. The United States and Iran received nearly equal -- and low -- scores, placing 96 and 97 on the list.

Iraq placed dead last, just below Sudan and Israel.

The Index, initiated by international businessman and philanthropist Steve Killelea and co-produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), measures and ranks nations' "peacefulness" based on an average score derived from 24 key indicators.

The new measurement is expected to help governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and businesses replicate initiatives whose success can now be more accurately measured and evaluated, said the Global Peace Index's founders.

Norway took the title for most peaceful nation due largely to the internal peace it is experiencing and its limited involvement in external conflict, except for peacekeeping missions. Norway's strong international ties, particularly with neighboring Scandinavian countries, also contributed to its high ranking.

Although Norway's military expenditure was higher than other Nordic countries surveyed, its citizens' access to small arms and light weapons is highly restricted, improving the country's peacefulness rating.

The indicators used to rank the countries, which ranged from a nation's level of military expenditure to its relations with neighboring countries and its level of respect for human rights, also allowed EIU's team to identify common "drivers" that make for the most peaceful societies.

Among these are high levels of income, schooling, and regional integration. Peaceful nations were also found to share high levels of transparency in government and low levels of corruption.

The United States scored low on the scale despite possessing high levels of democracy and transparency of government in addition to education and material wellbeing. The low ranking resulted in large part from its direct engagement in warfare and external conflict. High levels of incarceration and homicide and an elevated level of military spending were also cited as negative contributors to peace.

"There will be many questions and concerns about the index's findings, but it is hard to discredit this project," Global Peace Index CEO Clyde McConaghy told reporters, adding that it was a "good" first attempt at something never before done.

The Global Peace Index has been endorsed by several Nobel Laureates and many other notable dignitaries, and has drawn support from several NGOs, including the Washington, DC-based Alliance for Peacebuilding, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in California, and OneWorld (the parent organization of the OneWorld on Yahoo! News service).

According to the Index's sponsors, the data it produces will make it easier for NGOs to invest in more appropriate aid programs for each country, provide a tool to hold aid recipients accountable, and, over time, provide a benchmark for the overall performance of all world actors working for peace.

McConaghy said the Index's existence means that "links between peace and prosperity will be uncovered" and "profiles of what a peaceful nation looks like will be created."

"And this," McConaghy added, "will provide a better foundation -- a foundation of underlying peace -- for solving important issues like global warming, overpopulation, and a decreasing biodiversity."

Gorden Brown calls for New World Order.

Putin calls for new financial world order

Putin calls for new financial world order

By Neil Buckley and Catherine Belton in St Petersburg

Published: June 10 2007 19:10 | Last updated: June 10 2007 19:10

Russian president Vladimir Putin called on Sunday for a radical overhaul of the world’s financial and trade institutions to reflect the growing economic power of emerging market countries – including Russia.

Mr Putin said the world needed to create a new international financial architecture to replace an existing model that had become “archaic, undemocratic and unwieldy”.

His apparent challenge to western dominance of the world economic order came at a forum in St Petersburg designed to showcase the country’s economic recovery. Among 6,000 delegates at the biggest business forum ever held in post-Soviet Russia were scores of international chief executives including heads of Deutsche Bank, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Nestlé, Chevron, Siemens and Coca-Cola.

Business deals worth more than $4bn were signed at the conference – including an order by Aeroflot for Boeing jets – as executives said they were continuing to invest in Russia despite deteriorating relations with the west.

Mr Putin’s hosting of the forum capped a week in which he dominated the international stage. He warned last Monday that Russia might target nuclear missiles at Europe if the US built a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, then offered a compromise at the G8 summit involving switching part of the US system to Azerbaijan.

His speech on financial institutions suggested that, along with an aggressive recent campaign against US “unilateralism” in foreign policy, he was also seeking to challenge western dominance of the world economic order.

Mr Putin said 50 years ago, 60 per cent of world gross domestic product came from the Group of Seven industrial nations. Today, 60 per cent of world GDP came from outside the G7.

“The interests of stable economic development would be best served by a new architecture of international economic relations based on trust and mutually beneficial integration,” Mr Putin said.

The Russian president said there was increasing evidence that existing organisations were “not doing a good job regulating global economic relations”.

“Institutions created with a focus on a small number of active players sometimes look archaic, undemocratic and unwieldy. They are a far cry from recognising the existing balance of power,” he said.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007