The politics of greed is what keeps this world wrapped in corruption. If you want to stick around for a while longer, I suggest you educate yourself and try to do something constructive to help save what little good, honesty, and trust we have left.

A motto for us old vets: Take one with you!

Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.

Go to Home

Highest Go To numbers are the latest Links of all coruption pages.


Go to 13418
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/105255-0/
Famine killed 7 million people in USA
Front page / World / Americas
19.05.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru

Pages: 123

Another online scandal has been gathering pace recently. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, deleted an article by a Russian researcher, who wrote about the USA’s losses in the Great Depression of 1932-1933. Indignant bloggers began to actively distribute the article on the Russian part of a popular blog service known as Livejournal. The above-mentioned article triggered a heated debate.

Famine killed 7 million people in USA

The researcher touched upon quite a hot topic in the article – the estimation of the number of victims of the Great Depression in the USA. The material presented in the article apparently made Wikipedia’s moderators delete the piece from the database of the online encyclopedia.

The researcher, Boris Borisov, in his article titled “The American Famine” estimated the victims of the financial crisis in the US at over seven million people. The researcher also directly compared the US events of 1932-1933 with Holodomor, or Famine, in the USSR during 1932-1933.

In the article, Borisov used the official data of the US Census Bureau. Having revised the number of the US population, birth and date rates, immigration and emigration, the researcher came to conclusion that the United States lost over seven million people during the famine of 1932-1933.

“According to the US statistics, the US lost not less than 8 million 553 thousand people from 1931 to 1940. Afterwards, population growth indices change twice instantly exactly between 1930-1931: the indices drop and stay on the same level for ten years. There can no explanation to this phenomenon found in the extensive text of the report by the US Department of Commerce “Statistical Abstract of the United States,” the author wrote.

The researcher points out the movement of population at this point: “A lot more people left the country than arrived during the 1930s – the difference is estimated at 93,309 people, whereas 2.960,782 people arrived in the country a decade earlier. Well, let’s correct the number of total demographic losses in the USA during the 1930s by 3,054 people.”

Analyzing the period of the Great Depression in the USA, the author notes a remarkable similarity with events taking place in the USSR during the 1930s. He even introduced a new term for the USA – defarming – an analogue to dispossession of wealthy farmers in the Soviet Union. “Few people know about five million American farmers (about a million families) whom banks ousted from them lands because of debts. The US government did not provide them with land, work, social aid, pension – nothing,” the article says.

“Every sixth American farmer was affected by famine. People were forced to leave their homes and go to nowhere without any money and any property. They found themselves in the middle of nowhere enveloped in massive unemployment, famine and gangsterism.”

Join Pravda.ru forum to experience freedom of speech

Pages: 123
print version e-mail



Go to 13417
http://www.rense.com/general30/skoldeal.htm
The Overthrow Of The
American Republic - Part 19
Democrats And GOP In Secret Iraq Deal
By Sherman H. Skolnick
10-12-2

Is there an American Gestapo? And are there subjects forbidden to be discussed in print and on the air in U.S.? Judge for yourself from the facts and circumstances.

[1] Widely known and confirmed, separate from us, are the details of the sordid personal life of George W. Bush, current resident and occupant of the White House. In view of the extraordinary manner he was installed by a five-person, Military-style Junta of the U.S. Supreme Court, I do refer to him simply as the "occupant and resident of the White House", not as elected "president". [His opponent won the popular vote nationwide and had the Electoral Vote stolen in Florida as outlined in previous of our website stories.]

Read Parts 14 through 17 inclusive of this series, to understand how George W. Bush is being blackmailed by the Red Chinese using him to get U.S. military secrets.

And read how the secret court and secret appeals court dealt with this issue, to obstruct some websites carrying the story.

[2] Some weeks prior to the posting of this story, I discussed on a major Canadian radio talk show the following topics: [thereafter, the secret court ordered that voice and data transmission be blocked between U.S. and Canadian media outlets and similar obstructions. See part 17.]

That the Bush White House was negotiating with Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. He is reportedly being offered Two Hundred Billion Dollars to find an acceptable excuse to leave his position in Baghdad and go into exile in Portugal. To understand the situation, you have to know a lot of related facts.

You have to understand the ins and outs of "The October Surprise". Daddy Bush running for Vice President on the Reagan/Bush ticket in 1980, feared that incumbent Jimmy Carter, running for re-election, would pull off an "October Surprise" (the term apparently originates with Daddy Bush). Namely, that Carter would show he is not a wimp and was able to get the release of the 52 U.S. hostages held by the Iranians. Getting their release in October, 1980, just before the November, 1980 Presidential Election, would, Daddy Bush thought, give Carter an edge to win.
Late in October, 1980, in a Paris suburb, Daddy Bush arranged to bribe top officials of the Teheran government (a) with 40 million dollars Bush had siphoned off the GOP National Committee when Bush held a key position and (b) with guarantees of supplying weapons to Iran in the war Iran was having with Iraq, that started in September, 1980. (The French CIA secretly taped the treasonous dealings and has been ever since, blackmailing certain advantages out of the Bush Crime Family.)

In return for these pay-offs, the Teheran government agreed to keep the 52 U.S. hostages as prisoners until the Reagan/Bush team was successfully inaugurated. This arrangement by Daddy Bush constituted treason pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".

In January, 1981, just as Reagan raised his hand to be sworn in as the new President, the 52 U.S. hostages were released by Iran. The promised weapons shipments, which began in November, 1980, promised and guaranteed to the Iranians by Daddy Bush, were sent as follows:

U.S. arranged ships, with false shipping documents, carrying the weapons, stopped first in Portugal to pick up more items. From there, they went to Israel which, in turn, agreed to trans-ship the same to Iran. [From time to time, thereafter, when Israel needed to blackmail funds out of the White House, whether under Daddy Bush running the Presidency actually from 1981 to 1993, or through Bush pal Bill Clinton, Israel referred to their direct knowledge of the Daddy Bush treason.]

Knowing about this arrangement was the Prime Minister of Portugal and other top Portuguese officials who very reluctantly went along. With all his links to the American CIA, Daddy Bush later reportedly arranged to have the Prime Minister and another official snuffed out, by way of a sabotaged airplane crash.

[To understand how this method has been used historically, visit our website series, "The Secret History of Airplane Sabotage".]

In the Spring of 2002, details of the assassination of Portugal's Prime Minister and related matters came up in their Legislature in Lisbon. The sizeable news outlets in Portugal, to their credit, carried the details how Daddy Bush assassinated the top officials. Naturally, the oil-soaked, spy-riddled American monopoly press and their lap-dogs were silent.

[3] Some weeks ago, I mentioned details of the 200 Billion Dollar Saddam Hussein exile deal on a major Canadian radio talk show. Thereafter, was the action of the secret court and secret appeals court mentioned in Part 17 of this series.

[4] As a result of his secret private business partnership with Daddy Bush, Saddam Hussein become one of the richest men on the planet. Saddam owns, among other things, a sizeable portion of MATRA, the French, Paris-based firm that through a satellite arrangement, operates at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, the People Mover System. That Matra-controlled system on a light railway, moves people and baggage from the terminals to the airplanes.

On tape, I interviewed the woman city official, in the City of Chicago agency that supervises O'Hare Airport. Here is a summary of the dialogue:

Skolnick: I understand your agency is greatly concerned about possible terrorism at O'Hare Airport.
City Official: Yes, we certainly are.
Skolnick: And because of your title and position, you are authorized to comment on this?
City Official: Yes
Skolnick: Iraqi strongman, Saddam Hussein, is a major owner of Matra that runs the People Mover System. The Washington government describes Saddam as a "terrorist", or assisting terrorists. Then how come you do not inquire in respect to the People Mover System being owned and operated by Saddam Hussein at O'Hare Airport?
City Official: The subject does not interest us. We are not concerned.
Skolnick: So you and your city government agency do not intend to do anything about this?
City official: We are not concerned.

Saddam Hussein owns a whole host of other companies operating in the United States. For example, he reportedly has been a major owner of Hachette, the firm that owns and ran GEORGE MAGAZINE, of which John F. Kennedy, Jr., was the Editor. Hachette for some time prior to July, 1999, was planning to shut down the magazine, and JFK, Jr., vigorously opposed the shut-down, claiming it violated his contractual understanding with Hachette. Was this an additional reason for killing JFK, Jr. by bombing his airplane?

[See our website series, "What Happened to America's Golden Boy?". Part 4 of that has the details of a secret FBI report of the bombing of JFK Jr.'s airplane; details that were not to have been made public for 30 years.]

Saddam Hussein also owns a substantial financial interest in an American missile production firm, Fairchild, through their Italian subsidiary. Saddam's personal testimony, if ever elicted in a proper tribunal, could put Daddy Bush and other members of the Bush Crime Family in federal prison for treason and other high crimes.

[Details of Saddam Hussein's ownership of various U.S. enterprises are contained, in part, in articles in the Wall Street Journal, 1991, and were compiled by a New York investigation firm, Jules Kroll & Associates, commissioned by the ruling Al Sabah Family of Kuwait.]
[5] Two-faced hotshots of the Democrat Party, and their financial kingpins, have reportedly agreed to go along with George W. Bush, in a deal offering 200 BILLION dollars to Saddam Hussein to find an acceptable excuse for him o go into exile in Portugal. BUT, will there be a series of strange, unexplained events before, during, and after the 2002 Election? [Are the sniper killings in the District of Columbia-area one such group of strange events?That is, weird happenings calculated to divert attention? Is a secret NSA U.S. government unit involved in the D.C. sniper murders? And do state and federal authorities already know about this but are powerless to stop it? ]

Cowards high up in the Democrat Party have reportedly informed Bush that they would quietly go along with the Saddam pay-off. Likewise reportedly spineless are Holywood money bags of the Democrat Party, such as David Geffen and others.

[6] For some years now, one of Saddam Hussein's relatives in Switzerland has threatened to scandalize the Bush Family if any physical harm befell Saddam at the hands of Daddy Bush and the American CIA.

To show he is serious, this Swiss-based relative has already released the first batch of some 300 authentic secret Federal Reserve wire transfer records. They have been examined and scrutinized by wire transfer experts who say the records are legitimate. The records prove that the Bush Crime Family, through their secret 25 worldwide accounts, launder the illicit proceeds of various treasons and crimes, such as the secret business partnership between Daddy Bush and Saddam Hussein.

[Some of these records are attached to our website series, "Greenspan Aids and Bribes Bush".]
These clandestine transactions involve HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. For example, one of the documents shows the joint account of Daddy Bush and his sons, with the Queen of England, at her private bank, Coutts Bank London. As authorized by Greenspan, one of the documents, through Martwell as a front for Bush Family, shows they shared ONE HUNDRED BILLIONS DOLLARS through the joint account with the Queen of England.
Other of the documents show the wire transfers of bribery funds to influence public officials to turn loose Daddy Bush's son Neil who faced hundreds of millions of dollars of federal civil and criminal charges. Neil reportedly stole and misapplied hundreds of millions of dollars when he was Director of a federally-insured financial enterprise, Silverado Savings. About the time that a Denver U.S. District Judge, Richard Matsch, turned loose Neil from the various charges, the Judge's daughter was mysteriously murdered. Did the Judge get the message? Was the same Judge reminded about his daughter when he got the Timothy McVeigh case? [Visit our website story, "The Secrets of Timothy McVeigh" as well as earlier items about fraud upon the court and McVeigh.]

If Saddam rejects the exile deal, will his Swiss-based relative release another batch of secret Federal Reserve wire transfer records, showing the money laundering and treason of the Bush Crime Family? Or, have some of those other records been already released and are in the process of being authenticated by some independent-minded journalist?
As I started to discuss the Saddam Hussein exile deal on a radio talk show, a mysterious power surge conked out the radio station and all their phone lines. Later, the radio station engineer told me that these mysterious power surges seem to occur whenever they have a popular and controversial radio broadcast.

So, is there a nameless, faceless Gestapo in the United States?



Go to 13416
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4710.html
The Battle for America Has Begun- Strategic Forecasts
May 14, 2008
By: Richard_C_Cook
This article contains several forecasts, including the possible start of a major war with unforeseeable consequences, if the U.S. should happen to attack Iran . Of course it is in the nature of forecasts to be speculative. There are also forecasts that are intended to serve as warnings and thereby contribute to preventing the events under analysis from ever taking place.

The world's financial elite, long having made their homes in the metropolises of Western Europe, also with a major branch in New York City , may be the party that is really behind what could be an attempt to start World War III by pitting the U.S. against the Asiatic land powers, most notably Russia



The elite have long viewed control of the vast resource-rich Asian continent as the key to control of the world, with the fulcrum of domination being the oil-rich Middle East . Such a war could begin if the U.S. and Britain follow through by attacking Iran on the heels of the Afghan and Iraq wars and recent military deployments to the Persian Gulf region.

The attack may be nuclear, egged on by neocon extremists in the U.S. and their counterparts in Israel , who may simultaneously carry the attack to Lebanon and Syria . (See Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “Beating the Drums of a Broader Middle East War,” Global Research, May 7, 2008.) These events are closely tied to the U.S. economic recession now underway and the 2008 presidential election.

What is unique about this analysis is the author's contention that the U.S. is being used unwittingly by the European-based financial powers for their own purposes. They know that the U.S. economy is bankrupt, because they have made it so through a quarter century of financial manipulations that have destroyed our manufacturing base and left us horrendously in debt.

Now they have suckered us into the last thing we need—a major Asian land war that threatens to bring Russia and perhaps China into the fray. But that's all right, because once we have exhausted ourselves and courted nuclear retaliation, Europe, which is uniting under the European Union, will likely be left standing, as will Israel .

Note that Israel was created by and owes its primary allegiance to the European financiers, especially those in London , even though the U.S. has been its primary arms supplier and enabler since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. If the financiers, aided by Israel , can instigate a major war to get rid of Russia , along with the U.S. , as world powers, they will have accomplished their aim.
The Unique Status of the U.S. and Russia

The U.S. and Russia are the two great continental powers which up until about a century ago most stood in the way of the rapacity and greed of the international financial elite. The people of both nations have a history of being deeply spiritual, talented and innovative, and rooted in the land. Both nations tried for a long time to keep Western Europe , with its history of economic and colonialist imperialism, at arms length.

Despite the wars and traumas of the 20th century, both the U.S. and Russia remain cultures where ordinary people have struggled to express themselves, to learn, to work, and to excel, even with Russia 's background of Tsarist and Soviet autocracy. See, for instance, the writings of Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918-).

This heritage is much different from that of the Western European aristocratic culture with its rigid class divisions, where an economically powerful oligarchy has controlled society for centuries and has always managed to stay on top despite wars and revolutions.

The aristocratic tradition is most notable in Great Britain , with the incredible wealth of the Windsor royal family and the concentric circles of power and influence which surround it. These circles are made up of a blend of the old nobility with the more recent additions of bankers, financiers, industrialists, government executives, media moguls, and intelligence operatives who continue to control much of the wealth of the world.

The people who settled America fled that predatory aristocratic culture to find freedom. It is less well known how Tsarist Russia resisted Western European domination, but it is a fact that a longstanding alliance among the House of Romanoff, the Orthodox Church, the rural nobility, and the peasantry came together to create a culture that successfully kept that nation free from external control for most of its history.

European Lust for Control of the Middle East

It was really the European elite, both deeply materialistic and coldly inhumane, that was responsible for both of the 20 th century's world wars, for funding the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia , and for bringing about today's economic crisis that threatens to reduce to abject poverty or even starve perhaps half of the world's population. Now a third world war threatens, and while it appears on the surface that the immediate cause may be U.S. ambitions in the Middle East , this is a mask for the underlying machinations of the European controllers who are pulling the strings.

These people couldn't care less if the U.S. is bankrupted or destroyed in a larger Asian conflict while engaged in doing their dirty work. In fact that appears to be the plan. A nation like the U.S. that owes as much money as it does today to foreigners, including China and Japan who purchase close to half our national debt, is no longer master of its own destiny.

The European desire for military conquest of the Middle East dates to the Crusades which started in the 11 th century. By the end of the 18 th century, Great Britain had planted itself on the eastern terminus of the region through the conquest of India . In 1798, Napoleon invaded Egypt . World War I saw the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, with Britain and France redrawing the map of an area consisting of almost a million square miles. When Israel was founded in 1948, it became a Western bridgehead.

But today it's the U.S. , with its bases in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, and conquests in Afghanistan and Iraq , that leads the charge. This is so, even though a glance at the map shows how contrary to our strategic interests—and how unimaginably expensive—it is for us to have been drawn into a major open-ended military commitment in this part of the world. Some call it empire. Rational men call it lunacy.

How has this come about? Since the 1970s, the U.S. has been dangerously dependent on Middle Eastern oil and on the OPEC nations to purchase our Treasury bonds. The need to sell our debt abroad came about late in the Vietnam War when our post-World War II trade surplus was reversed and the government went deeply into debt to pay for the war and the growth in income support entitlements.

But there is another explanation for why we are there—pressure from the Jewish lobby. This lobby acts in the U.S. , perhaps unwittingly and certainly against its own interests as U.S. citizens, as a surrogate not only for Israel , but, taking a longer view, also for the European financial elite who backed the creation of a Jewish national state in Palestine in the first place.

Of course many Jews, including sizeable numbers in Israel , themselves no longer believe in policies which have brought them so much ill repute. Increasingly, people of goodwill, including many of the Jewish faith, are coming to understand that neither opposition to the abuses of the financial elite nor questioning the actions of the Israeli state itself is anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic.

But if events continue in the same direction, the Asiatic land powers, now loosely organized through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes China , Russia , Kazakhstan , Kyrgyzstan , Tajikistan , and Uzbekistan , with Iran as an observer, will have had enough. There is a line in the sand facing west as well as east. A major war is clearly on its way which seems to be timed to coincide with the ongoing economic collapse that is undermining the U.S. economy and also threatening to plunge much of the world into famine.

Connection with the 2008 Presidential Election

The war scenario is unfolding now and will likely accelerate as we approach the November presidential election. The actions underway appear to be designed to present any new president with a fait accompli, where corrective action is no longer possible. It would be the last and worst of the catastrophes visited on our nation by the revolutionary cabal of George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and the neocon shock troopers who took over when the Supreme Court awarded Bush the presidency after the 2000 Florida election debacle. Within nine months came the 9/11 attacks, followed by wars against Afghanistan and Iraq using off-the-shelf plans. Next came the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Acts.



Now in 2008 the three remaining presidential candidates are all compromised. Hillary Clinton, with her husband Bill, have long been servitors of that branch of the international financial elite headquartered on Wall Street in New York City . Recently, Republican candidate John McCain traveled to do homage to Israel , then attended a soiree with the Fourth Baron Rothschild in London . Barack Obama has also affirmed his loyalty to Israel , though his utterances against Iran are less vehement than those of Hillary Clinton, who has threatened to “obliterate” that nation.

Obama appears the most likely to become president, because the financial controllers, acting through the corporate media, seem to have designated him as such. Hillary Clinton is under intense pressure to get out, even though the Democratic race is a virtual dead heat and she just routed Obama in the West Virginia primary. The latest blow to Clinton is the endorsement of Obama by John Edwards, the Democrats' 2004 vice presidential candidate.

Obama is the candidate who came out of nowhere because eighty percent of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction. He is the candidate calling for “change,” whatever that means.

Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times , says, “Mrs. Clinton, we're assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive….Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.”

The determination by the financial controllers that Obama is the anointed one may also be shown by the entry into the race of former Georgia congressman Bob Barr as the candidate of the Libertarian Party. Barr will siphon votes away from John McCain and make Obama's election a certainty, just as Ross Perot did with President George H.W. Bush in 1990, allowing the election to swing to pro-business Democrat Bill Clinton.

Barr's entry is no accident and serves multiple purposes. According to journalist James P. Tucker, Jr., for instance, attendees at an April 25-28 meeting of the Trilateral Commission in Washington , D.C. , made a determination to stop Republican candidate Dr. Ron Paul's momentum in stirring up a political “revolution.” (James P. Tucker, Jr., “Trilateral Commission: Global Elite Gather in D.C.,” Global Research, May 6, 2008)

Dr. Paul, who has been delivering the news that the Federal Reserve by which the bankers rule should be abolished, and that U.S. foreign policy based on military conquest of the world should end, has been causing, according to the Trilateralists cited by Tucker, “significant future damage.” Bob Barr will doubtless be awarded handsomely for his trouble in helping de-fuse Dr. Paul's movement.

Dr. Paul is to be commended for his stance in taking on the establishment, and from the financiers' point of view, such populist uprisings as he is leading obviously must be checked. Using a Libertarian candidate to do this costs them nothing, as it is almost comical how the “macho” but outdated laissez-faire economics of the Libertarians play into the hands of the privately-owned banking system which makes all the important economic decisions anyway.

Obviously the financial establishment must feel reassured by the likelihood that Obama really won't change much of anything. Overseas, this could make it even more certain that a wider war will start before the election, so that Obama, being “cautious and relatively orthodox,” as Krugman says, will go along with whatever scenario he is handed and so will be handcuffed by events.

The trigger could be a 9/11-type faux attack, possibly a “suitcase” nuke going off in a U.S. port city, as has been rumored. Other possible scenarios include an attack on Iran being a cover for the election to be “stolen” from Obama, or even for the election to be canceled, with Bush continuing as president. Perhaps this is what explains Bush's curious detachment in the face of his coming departure as the most unpopular president in history. He may even entertain the psychopathic idea that cancelling the election could be perfectly “legal” and within his rights as a wartime chief executive. What would Obama do if faced with such an outrage while out on the campaign trail? Perhaps nothing.

Meanwhile, Democratic figures in Congress, such as Senator Joe Biden and Congressman John Conyers, are threatening to impeach President Bush if he attacks Iran without a congressional resolution. Unfortunately, the Democrats are totally lacking in credibility given their failure to force Bush to retreat from Iraq despite their mandate in the 2006 elections where they regained a majority in both houses. Bush would probably like nothing more in the waning days of his presidency than calling their bluff.

A Calamity Rooted in History

Events on this scale take decades or even centuries to develop. In fact such plans may have been in the works at least since the late 1800s, when three world wars were allegedly forecast by such figures as the celebrated Confederate general and Freemason Albert Pike, elected Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite's Southern Jurisdiction in 1859.

True to Pike's prediction, 1914-18 saw World War I, which forced the centuries-old rule of the European landed nobility to accommodate to the banking elites and to the heads of the industrial cartels which built the war machines of the combating nations.

According to Benjamin Freedman (1890-1984), an American eye-witness to events within the Woodrow Wilson administration, Wilson took the U.S. to war only after being pressured to support Great Britain when the British agreed to facilitate creation of a Zionist state in Palestine . The original Zionists, led by Theodor Herzl, had been favorably disposed to accepting a British offer of virgin land in Kenya , but the financiers wanted Palestine because of Middle Eastern oil and proximity to the Suez Canal . The result was the Balfour Declaration of 1916.

At the end of World War I came the Russian Revolution, when the financiers paid for the Bolsheviks to destroy the Russian Christian monarchy of the Romanoffs. Soviet communism was the result. Less than a generation later another world war was fought, with World War II ending with the triumph of the U.S. , Britain , France , the Soviet Union, and China as allies. Afterwards, finance capitalism exerted its control of the developing world through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. According to economist Michael Hudson, the West declared the existence of a Cold War only after the Soviet Union refused to accede to U.S. hegemony by joining the IMF. (Michael Hudson, Superimperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire , 2003)

Another major revolution followed World War II, as had happened after World War I, but this time in China , where the communists under Mao Tse-Tung took over. In 1948, the nation of Israel was declared, partly through the instrumentality and wealth of the Third Baron Rothschild, who was also an MI5 controller and alleged Soviet agent. (See Roland Perry, The Fifth Man , 1994.)

The key event in how the financial elite gained control over the U.S. in the postwar world was the 1971 decision by the Nixon administration to remove the dollar gold peg and allow world currencies to “float.” After the U.S. agreed to the explosion of OPEC oil prices in the 1970s, dollars flooded the world. (See Richard C. Cook, “Extraordinary Times, Intentional Collapse, and Takedown of the U.S.A. ,” Global Research, April 30, 2008.)

In 1979 the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker plunged the U.S. into recession to fight the resulting inflation, and the U.S. producing economy was wrecked. Since that time there has been no real growth of the U.S. GDP or the standard of living of American workers. Rather a steady and seemingly irreversible decline has set in under the euphemistic title of the “service economy.” Since the early 1980s there has been a constant cycle of inflating and deflating asset bubbles, with the latest episode being the collapse of the housing bubble following the ruinous housing and real estate inflation engineered by Alan Greenspan, Volcker's successor as head of the Federal Reserve.

The result of the bubble economy under the Federal Reserve regime known as “monetarism” has been a debt overhang on the U.S. producing economy of $50 trillion, four times the nominal GDP of $13 billion. There is an additional overhang of more than $500 trillion in derivative speculation worldwide that many legitimate U.S. investors, including employee pension funds, have been caught up in.

Severe economic distress usually leads to war, with the elite financing both sides and using the resulting chaos to redraw the map to their advantage. We have now had two world wars, and the third appears to be coming. The end result, according to “conspiracy theorists,” is supposed to be a financial world dictatorship with Europe 's financial and hereditary aristocrats at the top of the heap. The center of this dictatorship would be Northern Europe, with the focal point being the two-square-mile financial district known as the City of London . This group also controls the European Union headquartered in Brussels .

Then what is left of North America, Asia, Africa, and Latin America would be tightly controlled colonies inhabited by relatively small numbers of “human cattle” and their overseers. The advanced technological execution for the machinery of control and oppression would be the job of professionals in the field, probably including the British MI5, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and private armed mercenaries like Blackwater and Halliburton.

Dangers of the Present Moment

Whatever may be the murky background of the financiers' conspiracy of subversion, what makes the present situation so dangerous is that entire nations and regions are slipping from their grasp. Russia , China , Venezuela , Bolivia , Ecuador , and other nations are becoming increasingly independent. Meanwhile, as food prices inflate, people in developing nations are facing starvation, even as Western agribusiness and oil companies reap record profits. Political upheavals are inevitable.

It has never been so obvious to so many that Western-style finance capitalism is ruining the world. An example of the growing awareness is a new book entitled Currency Wars (Huobi Zhanzheng) , written by a Chinese author who lived in the United States and worked on Wall Street.

According to Asia Times Online (April 8, 2008), Currency Wars “has become a runaway bestseller in China in the past nine months. The book caused a sensation of interests and heated discussions in Chinese cyber space and other media on Western intentions behind its demand that China quickly appreciate the value of its currency. Song Hongbing, the book's author, draws from a wide range of literature in English and argues that the modern history of international finance is primarily a process of how a very small number of powerful families in the West have established their control over governments and international institutions.

“According to Song, there is no such thing as a free market when it comes to global finance and financial institutions. From the Rothschild family at the time of the Napoleonic Wars to the rise of J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, and other prominent U.S. financial powerhouses, Song sees all the modern wars, depressions, and manmade disasters having a linkage to the manipulation of a handful of Western private bankers.”

And it's not only in China . Through the internet, hundreds of millions of people are wising up to what the central banks and global corporations run by the world's super-rich are doing to them.

So the financiers are realizing that things are not going their way. The world is becoming more diverse. Nations, peoples, and regions long for freedom and security. Science and technology have the potential to bring about astounding improvements in the standard of living, as well as individual knowledge and potency.

There is also a worldwide resurgence of nationalism, for example, in Russia . After that nation overthrew communism in 1991, the international financiers attempted to move in through the Russian oligarchs and take control of the nation's resources. But a free election brought Vladimir Putin to power. He succeeded in producing on Russian soil a nationalist revolution which is loathed by the Western financier press, such as the Washington Post . Russia today is regaining its identity and independence.

In East Asia , China is threatening to break out of the system of U.S. dollar hegemony and use its own currency to bring about commercial stability in the region. In the Middle East, Iran has yet to cave in to U.S. pressure, the Palestinians still defy Israel , and in other areas around the world, including Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America, movements toward indigenous self-governance threaten to upset the “ Washington consensus” and introduce a truly multilateral tenor to world affairs. The euro is also making inroads as an alternative reserve currency.

Meanwhile, the American colossus is eroding. The U.S. government, with almost $10 trillion in debt, has been declared functionally bankrupt by experts. The domestic economy no longer has a manufacturing sector worth speaking of. Outside of the financial centers on the east and west coasts, the nation's business establishment is deeply in debt and noncompetitive with overseas producers. Public health is declining.

The U.S. financial system began to deflate in the summer of 2007 but has so far avoided a wholesale crash due to the easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve in allowing financial institutions to roll over their debts. This is all likely to terminate after the 2008 election, when the Federal Reserve stops bailing out the system and real depression sets in. Simply put, the U.S. population no longer has anything close to sufficient income to support its accustomed way of life, especially with the ongoing collapse of the standard of living due to oil and food price increases.

So the war-mongers may be thinking they must now act before it's too late—before a worldwide convulsion throws them from their seats of power. The time for the financiers to set off the next major conflagration may have arrived. Naïve American politicians are there, as always, ready to help, perhaps sensing but not really acknowledging that they have been led into a trap.

The Real U.S. Strategic Interest

If the next big war starts soon it will likely have been triggered in order to distract attention from our economic woes. Once chaos sets in there will be food riots and starvation around the world, including in America . And yes, the police and military are getting ready. The war will be a handy excuse to lock up people by using the Patriot Acts and various executive orders signed by President George W. Bush. Canada and Israel have already signed a joint public safety “partnership,” which doubtless includes cooperation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

At this point you would expect American policy-makers to realize that the U.S. has no strategic interest in maintaining its military forces overseas in such a vulnerable posture and would start withdrawing. You would also expect that they would do what President Franklin Roosevelt did during the New Deal which was to utilize public credit to rebuild the U.S. public and private infrastructure before the economy collapses altogether.

The fact that none of the mainstream political leaders, least of all McCain or the Democratic front-runner Obama, has any intention of taking such decisive action proves that policy is not being controlled from within the United States . When a person or a nation fails to act in its own self-interest, there has to be a reason. That reason is usually that its actions are controlled from outside.

The fact is that the U.S. economy is controlled by international finance, not by the U.S. business establishment or by our own political system. So the U.S. cannot change anything, especially in taking effective and rational measures to get the nation out of debt. Similarly in the area of foreign and military affairs, the nation appears unable to backtrack from its march to catastrophe.

So whether the people of this nation want it or not—and a majority do not—wars are being waged, with the one against Iran likely to be followed by a general world conflict—the battle for Asia . It will be the financiers and their personal military forces—chiefly Israel , which is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons—who will be left to pick up the pieces once the U.S. and Russia have reduced each other's forces to rubble.

Can anything be done? Of course. A U.S. president worthy of the office would take two immediate actions. The first would be to abolish the Federal Reserve, as Ron Paul advocates. But instead of hankering for a Libertarian “free-banking” system more suited to 1830 than to 2008, “We the People” should demand that our elected representatives in the White House and Congress use public credit to rebuild our economy and provide our people with real income security. (See Richard C. Cook, "An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform for the United States," Global Research, April 26, 2007.)

The second immediate action should be to stop trying to conquer the globe militarily on behalf of alien financial and geopolitical interests. These measures will also allow the governmental tax burden to be cut radically, because the main purposes of the income tax are to pay interest on the national debt and finance wars.

It is now time for all genuine American patriots, including those in the military, intelligence, and political establishments, as well as students, workers, employees, managers, industrialists, and retirees to recognize the crisis and step forward fearlessly to defend the real interests of our country. Increasingly people are coming to understand that winning the battle for America requires steadfast opposition to the cabal which holds power and is ready to throw our nation and its population to the wolves for a bit of vainglory and thirty pieces of silver.

Unfortunately, it seems to be the way with empires for those in power to be identified exclusively with their personal self-interest while the world crashes down around them. People must w ake up. The house is on fire. We can only hope that some still have eyes to see.

Of course everything in Washington could change with a responsible president who is supported by a new Congress which has the determination that should be expected after the voters take their vengeance this November on a Republican Party that Bush, Cheney, and Rice have tarred with infamy. But then again only if a widened Middle Eastern war can be prevented between now and then. It could be prevented if an awakened military loyal to the Constitution refused to obey the illegal orders of a repudiated lame duck president acting without congressional authorization.

For the longer-term, we should step back, reassess the geopolitical outlook, and take the long-overdue step of recognizing who our natural allies in the world really are. One of these is Russia . Instead of fighting Russia we should forge a new alliance with that nation with the aim of securing peace, first in the Middle East and then in the world. If we want to find an enemy to attack, we should start with Wall Street, then send an expeditionary force to lay siege to the City of London .

By Richard C. Cook
=http:// www.richardccook.com



Go to 13415
http://www.rense.com/general82/appeal.htm
Open Appeal For
Straight Talk On Iran
By Ray McGovern
27 Year CIA Intel Analyst
5-21-8

Dear Admiral Fallon:

I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I have drafted this letter in the hope it will come to your attention.


First, thank you for honoring the oath we commissioned officers take to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. As you are doubtless aware, that oath has no expiration date; it remains on active duty, so to speak.
You have let it be known that, even though you are now retired, you do not intend to speak, on or off the record, about the looming war with Iran.


You are acutely aware of the dangers of attacking Iran, but seem to be allowing an inbred reluctance to challenge your erstwhile commander in chief to trump that oath, and to prevent you from letting the American people know of the catastrophe about to befall us if, as seems likely, our country attacks Iran.


Two years ago I lectured at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. I found it highly disturbing that, when asked about the oath they took upon entering the academy, several of the "Mids" thought it was to the commander in chief. This brought to my mind the photos of German generals and admirals (as well as top church leaders and jurists) swearing personal oaths to Hitler. Not our tradition, and yet..


I was aghast that only the third Mid I called on got it right - that the oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the president.


Attack Iran: Trash the Constitution


No doubt you are very clear that an attack on Iran would be a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States, which stipulates that treaties ratified by the Senate become the supreme law of the land; that the United Nations Charter treaty - which the Senate ratified by a vote of 89 to 2 on July 28, 1945 - expressly forbids attacks on other countries, unless they pose an imminent danger; that there is no provision allowing some other kind of "pre-emptive" or "preventive" attack against a nation that poses no imminent danger; and that Iran poses no imminent danger to the United States or its allies.


You may be forgiven for thinking: Isn't 41 years of service enough; isn't it enough that I resigned in order to remove myself from a chain of command with no conscience or respect for national or international law - that I shuddered at the thought of being charged in some earthly or heavenly court as a war criminal, if I "just followed orders" and helped start an unprovoked war on Iran? Isn't making my misgivings known to journalists last year, realizing fully that this could be a career-ender - isn't all that enough?


With respect, sir, no, that's not enough. The stakes here are extremely high, and together with the integrity you have already shown goes still further responsibility. Sadly, the vast majority of your general officer colleagues have, for whatever reason, ducked that responsibility. You are pretty much it.


In their lust for attacking Iran, administration officials will do their best to marginalize you, but you do not strike me as one likely to be deterred by that. And, prominent a person that you are, the corporate media surely will try to do the same, if you exposed the lies given as justification for attacking Iran.


Indeed, there are clear signs the media have been given their marching orders to support an attack on Iran-to include pre-censorship of factual stories exposing administration hyperbole and fecklessness, as the White House and the Pentagon paint a dubious portrait of the dangers posed by Iran.


Preparing a Captive Audience for War

At the CIA I used to analyze the Soviet press, so you will understand when I refer to the Washington Post and the New York Times as the White House's Pravda and Izvestiya. Sadly, these days it is as easy as during the days of the controlled Soviet press to follow our own government's evolving line with a daily reading of our own controlled press.

In a word, our newspapers are dutifully revving up for war on Iran, and are even trotting out some of the most widely discredited cheerleaders for war on Iraq - the New York Times' Michael Gordon of aluminum tubes fame, for example, who is again parroting what he gets from administration officials and casting it as news.
In some respects the manipulation and suppression of information in the present lead-up to an attack on Iran is even more flagrant and all encompassing than in early 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.


It seems entirely possible that you are unaware of a recent misadventure that speaks volumes about this - unaware precisely because the media have put the wraps on it. So let me adduce one striking example of what is afoot here. The example has to do with the studied, if disingenuous, effort over recent months to blame all the troubles in southern Iraq on the "malignant" influence of Iran.
Sadly, some of your erstwhile colleagues are among the dramatis personae.


But Covering Up Fiasco


Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen told reporters on April 25 that Gen. David Petraeus would be giving a briefing "in the next couple of weeks" that would provide detailed evidence of "just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability." Petraeus' staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed.
Small problem. When American munitions experts went to Karbala to inspect the alleged cache of Iranian weapons they found nothing that could be linked credibly to Iran.
News to you? That's because this potentially embarrassing episode went virtually unreported in the media-like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no corporate media to hear it crash. So Mullen and Petraeus live, uninhibited and unembarrassed, to keep searching for Iranian weapons so the media can then tell a story more supportive of the orders they have been given to find ways to blame Iran for the troubles in Iraq. Luckily for them, a fiasco is only a fiasco if folks know about it.


Media suppression of this misadventure is the most significant aspect of this story, in my view, and a telling indicator of how difficult it is to find honest reporting on these key issues.
Meanwhile, the Iraqis announced that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate U.S. claims about Iranian weapons, and to attempt to "find tangible information and not information based on speculation."


Dismissing the Intelligence Estimate


Top officials from the president on down have been dismissing the key judgment of the National Intelligence Estimate released on December 3, 2007, a judgment concurred in by the 16 intelligence units of our government, that Iran had stopped the weapons-related part of its nuclear program in mid-2003.


Always willing to do his part, the malleable CIA chief, Michael Hayden, on April 30 publicly offered his "personal opinion" that Iran is building a nuclear weapon-the National Intelligence Estimate notwithstanding. For good measure, Hayden added:
"It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq.Just make sure there's clarity on that."


Voicing his various "opinions," Hayden is beginning to sound like the overly clever lawyers who advised him, orally, that it would be just fine to order NSA to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and like the other attorneys who approved water boarding.
And, please, tell me why we should care about Hayden's "personal opinion?" My neighbor Suzie, who gets her news from FOX, keeps voicing her "personal opinion" that all Muslims want to kill Americans, that generals with blue uniforms are the most trustworthy, and that weapons of mass destruction will still be found in Iraq.


But, seriously, I don't need to tell you about the Haydens and the other smartly saluting, desk-riding headquarters generals here in Washington.
The Price of Silence


What I would suggest is that you have a serious conversation with a real general, Gen. Anthony Zinni, one of your predecessor CENTOM commanders (1997 to 2000). As you know probably better than I, this Marine general is an officer of unusual integrity. Nevertheless, when placed into circumstances very similar to those you now face, he could not find his voice. And so he missed his chance to interrupt-or at least slow down-the juggernaut to war in Iraq. You might ask him how he feels about that now, and what he would advise in current circumstances.
Zinni happened to be one of the honorees at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on August 26,2002, at which Vice President Dick Cheney delivered the exceedingly alarmist speech, unsupported by our best intelligence, about the nuclear threat and other perils awaiting us at the hands of Saddam Hussein. That speech not only launched the seven-month public campaign against Iraq leading up to the war, but set the terms of reference for the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate fabricated - yes, fabricated - to convince Congress to approve war on Iraq, which it did ten days later.


Gen. Zinni later shared publicly that, as he listened to Cheney, he was shocked to hear a depiction of intelligence that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two years earlier, his role as consultant had required him to stay up to date on intelligence relating to the Middle East. One Sunday morning three and a half years after Cheney's speech, Zinni told Meet the Press. "There was no solid proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destructionI heard a case being made to go to war."


Zinni had as good a chance as anyone to stop an unnecessary war-not a "pre-emptive war," since there was nothing to pre-empt - and Zinni knew it. What he and other knowledgeable officials could - and should - have tried to block was a war of aggression, defined at the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal as the "supreme international crime."


Sure, Zinni would have had to stick his neck out. He may have had to speak out alone, since most senior officials, like then-CIA Director George Tenet, lacked courage and integrity. In his memoir published a year ago, Tenet writes that Cheney did not follow the usual practice of clearing his August 26, 2002 speech with the CIA; that much of what Cheney said took him completely by surprise; and that Tenet "had the impression that the president wasn't any more aware of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it."


It is difficult to believe that Cheney's shameless speech took "slam-dunk" Tenet completely by surprise. We know from the Downing Street Minutes, vouched for by the UK as authentic, that Tenet told his British counterpart on July 20, 2002 that the president had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".


Encore: Iran


Admiral Fallon, you know this to be the case also now with respect to the "intelligence" being fixed to "justify" war with Iran. And no one knows better than you that your departure from the chain of command has turned it over completely to smartly saluting martinets. No doubt you have long since taken the measure, for example, of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. So have I.
I was his branch chief when he was a young, disruptively ambitious, CIA analyst. When Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William Casey sought someone to shape CIA analysis to accord with his own conviction that the Soviet Union would never change, Gates leaped at the chance, proved his mettle, and bubbled right up to be chief of analysis. After Casey died, Gates admitted to the Washington Post's Walter Pincus that he (Gates) watched Casey on "issue after issue sit in meetings and present intelligence framed in terms of the policy he wanted pursued." Gates' entire career showed that he learned well at Casey's knee.


So it should come as no surprise that, despite the unanimous judgment of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran stopped the weapons-related aspects of its nuclear program in mid-2003, Gates is now repeating the party line that Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Some of his earlier statements were more ambiguous, but Gates recently took advantage of the opportunity to bend with the prevailing winds and freshen his own loyalty oath - to the president.


In an interview on events in the Middle East with a New York Times reporter on April 11, Gates was asked whether he was on the same page as the president, Gates replied, "Same line, same word." I imagine you are no more surprised at that than I. Bottom line: Gates will salute smartly and transmit the order, legal or illegal, if Cheney persuades the president to let the Air Force and Navy loose on Iran.


You know the probable consequences; you need to let the rest of the American people know.


A Gutsy Precedent


Can you, Admiral Fallon, be completely alone; can it be that you are the only general officer to resign on principle? And, of equal importance, is there no other general officer, active or retired, who has taken the risk of speaking out in an attempt to inform Americans about President George W. Bush's bellicose fixation with Iran. Thankfully, there is.
Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, took the prestigious job of Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when asked by the younger Bush. From that catbird seat, Scowcroft could watch the unfolding of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Over decades dealing with the press, Scowcroft had honed a reputation of quintessential discretion. Thus, it was all the more striking when he did what he decided he had to do to warn Americans about what may be the president's most dangerous fixation.
In an interview with London's Financial Times in mid-October 2004 Scowcroft was harshly critical of the president, charging that Bush had been "mesmerized" by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft said. "He has been nothing but trouble."


Needless to say, Scowcroft was given his walking papers and told never to darken the White House doorstep again. His very troubling observations have been largely shunned in the media, and banned from polite conversation here in Washington, although the insight they provide is worth a thousand erudite op-eds. Testifying before Congress on June 16, 2005, I alluded to Scowcroft's comments, and was widely pilloried in the media the next day for being, you guessed it, "anti-Semitic."


A Bush Commitment?


There is ample evidence that Sharon's successors believe they have extracted a commitment from President Bush to "take care of Iran" before he leaves office, and that the president has done nothing to disabuse them of that notion - no matter the consequences.


Speaking at the World Economic Forum at Sharm el Sheikh on Sunday, Bush threw in a gratuitous reference to "Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions."
"To allow the world's leading sponsor of terror to gain the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."


Pre-briefing the press, Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley identified Iran as one of the dominant themes of the trip, adding repeatedly what seemed to be the PR formula of the day; namely, that Iran "is very much behind" all the woes afflicting the Middle East, from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq, even to Afghanistan.


The Rhetoric is Ripening


In the coming weeks, at least until U.S. forces can find some real Iranian weapons in Iraq, the rhetoric is likely to focus on what I call the Big Lie - the claim that Iran's president has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." In his controversial speech in 2005, Ahmadinejad was actually quoting from something Ayatollah Khomeini had said in the early eighties. Khomeini was expressing a hope that a regime that was treating the Palestinians so unjustly would be replaced by a more equitable one.


A distinction without a difference? I think not. Words matter. As you may already know (but most Americans don't), the literal translation from Farsi of what Ahmadinejad said is "The regime occupying Jerusalem much vanish from the pages of time." Contrary to what the administration and corporate media would have us all believe, the Iranian president was not threatening to nuke Israel, push it into the sea, or wipe it off the map - or, as is so often heard, "destroy" it.


President Bush is way out in front on this issue, and this comes through with particular clarity when he ad-libs answers to questions. On October 17, 2007, long after he had been briefed on the key intelligence finding that Iran had stopped the nuclear weapons-related part of its nuclear development program, the president spoke as though, well, "mesmerized." He said:
"But this - we got a leader in Iran who has announced he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems you ought to be interested in preventing them from have (sic) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously."


Some contend that Bush does not really believe his rhetoric. I rather think he does, for the Israelis seem to have his good ear, with the tin one aimed at the U.S. intelligence he has repeatedly disparaged. But, frankly, which would be worse: that Bush believes Iran to be an existential threat to Israel and thus requires U.S. military action? - or that he knows it's just rhetoric to "justify" U.S. action to "take care of" Iran for Israel?


What You Can Do

Admiral Fallon, you can surely speak authoritatively about what is likely to happen - to U.S. forces in Iraq, for example - if Bush orders your successors to begin bombing and missile attacks on Iran. I imagine you have spent more than one sleepless night sorting through the full array of Iranian options for serious retaliation.


And you could readily update Scowcroft's remarks, by drawing on what you observed of the Keystone Cops efforts of White House ideologues like Iran-Contra convict Elliot Abrams, supported by amateurish covert action operatives and Israeli intelligence, to overturn by force the ascendancy of Hamas in 2006-07 and Hezbollah. (Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of misleading Congress about the Iran-Contra affair, but was pardoned by the first President Bush on Dec. 24, 1992.)


Clearly, it is the arch-neoconservative Abrams, aided, instructed, and abetted by the vice president, who is running U.S. policy toward the Middle East. And it is just as clear that the status of the secretary state has been reduced simply to "frequent flyer."


It is easy to understand why no professional military officer would wish to be in the position of taking orders originating from the likes of Abrams - not to mention the vice president.
If you weigh in, as I believe your (non-expiring) oath to protect and defend the Constitution dictates, you might conceivably prompt other sober heads and courageous hearts to speak out. I hope you will agree that an attack on Iran can still be prevented, but it seems that this will take more outspokenness and energy than those of us who see what is coming have been able to muster so far. And the controlled press is a huge problem.

Were you to speak out strongly at this stage, the media could not ignore you. I cannot bring myself to believe that you, like so many on the Hill, would be cowed at the prospect of being pilloried by FOX and branded anti-Semitic. And, who knows; perhaps some of those former subordinate officers who admire you for what you have done, will be encouraged to go and do likewise.


And, in the end, if profound ignorance and ideology - supported by a captive corporate press and abetted by political parties supine before the Israel lobby - enable an attack on Iran, and the Iranians, for example, take thousands of our troops hostage in southern Iraq, you will be able to look in the mirror, and at the rest of us, and say at least you tried.
You will not have to live with the remorse of not knowing what you might have made possible, had you been able to shake your reluctance to speak out.

Leadership does not end with retirement; neither do oaths.

Respectfully,

Ray McGovern
Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)


Ray McGovern is a veteran Army intelligence officer and a former CIA analyst for 27 years.



Go to 13414
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a1_1180146218
US Sens question Halliburton Selling Nuclear Technology to Iran
Halliburton VP, Sherry Williams testifies at a Senate hearing about the company's dealings with Iran. (more)


Halliburton charged with selling nuclear technology to Iran
Halliburton, the notorious U.S. energy company, sold key nuclear-reactor components to a private Iranian oil company called Oriental Oil Kish as recently as 2005, using offshore subsidiaries to circumvent U.S. sanctions. The story is particularly juicy because Vice President Dick Cheney, who now claims to want to stop Iran from getting nukes, was president of Halliburton in the mid-1990s, at which time he may have advocated business dealings with Iran, in violation of U.S. law.
Source: "Halliburton Secretly Doing Business with Key Member of Iran's Nuclear Team," Jason Leopold, GlobalResearch.ca, Aug. 5, 2005.
Link Title


Iran’s top nuclear negotiator faces charges over Halliburton ties
=http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3040



Go to 13413
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8633
Voice of the White House May 19, 2008

TBR News.org – May 19, 2008

“I have used the Google information service for some time now for background information for my reports.

Of course I stopped using Wikipedia when I learned their ‘close connection’ with various governmental agencies and noted how they always seemed to present positive official views while trashing anyone who would dare to hold negative views towards the Fourth Reich on the Potomac.

So much for that abortion. It’s Google I am going to discuss.

With the dying of the print media, the hucksters are flocking to the internet to shove their overpriced, lead-painted Chinese imports down the public’s collective throat. Google seems to be a magnet for all the marketplace trash and now, when you click on the name, for example, of a Civil War general, (Confederate Braxton Bragg,) I got, in rapid succession, incest porn, young gay porn, an ad for a thrill-packed weekend in sleazy and drying out Las Vegas (‘and every Super Luxury Mini-Suite has inside plumbing or a nice balcony…’)and pictures of the general offered for sale by some other sleazy company.

It’s probably a joint scam with that fat ex-con ‘Small Dick’ Gordon who runs a Bible rip off and fake pet shelter (‘Baghdad Pups’) series of ripoffs on the internet.

Having had to get off the internet (some of the garbage won’t delete) and then get back on to get rid of the obnoxious trash, I later tried Google again to look up a Civil War ship.

Did I get the article I clicked on? No, I did not.

What I did get was another advert for tickets to a concert by a group called the Squashed Fetus, followed by a new site advertising over-priced and run-down beach front condos in Georgia .

Now, I don’t use Google anymore and strongly suggest that you keep your kids away from it. Some of the unwanted porn I got was hair raising. I haven’t seen anything like that since the last Bush cabinet meeting, especially the one with the stellar command performance by ‘Wide Stance” Larry Craig..”
www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2842.htm



Go to 13412
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8636
9/11 Conspiracy Wackos May Be Right
Dvorak Uncensored – May 16, 2008

Watch the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 side-b-side with a controlled demolition and see if you can spot the similarities.

Unleashed: Unanswered 9/11 Qusetions

”The collapse of New York’s World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.

At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training’s official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.

[…]

Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.

[…]

“As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur

William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.

The New York Fire Department’s oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission.”

If the towers were wired with explosives by terrorists prior to the planes, that would imply a lack of security on a massive scale that would be worth hiding. On the other hand, how do you hide that much work to rig buildings like that? If terrorists didn’t do it, why would the towers be rigged with explosives? Leaving aside the wacko’s government conspiracies, are other buildings routinely wired to blow to bring them straight down if something happens to prevent them falling onto other buildings? An interesting ‘protection’ scenario for the neighborhood that would be worth hiding for many reasons.

And then there’s this article from a few months ago with quotes from military experts like this one:

“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”
www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=17897



Go to 13411
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8638
Written Out of the Law: A Child’s Right to a Father
Gabriel Milland – The Daily Express May 21, 2008

MPs last night backed a controversial new law which will let clinics offer fertility treatment without a child’s right to a father.

A cross-party amendment by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith designed to keep the rule failed by 292 votes to 217.

The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is now set to make it easier for lesbians and single mothers to get treatments like IVF.

The vote came hours before MPs were due to square up for another Commons ethics showdown, this time over abortion.

Mr Duncan Smith, who has led a major study into social breakdown since rejoining the backbenches, said it was “utter nonsense” to suggest it was discriminatory to insist on the role of a father.

He was backed by Labour’s David Taylor who said it was “perverse” to “write the father out of the script”.

Geraldine Smith, another Labour supporter of the move, told Mr Duncan Smith: “To most people outside this House you are just talking common sense. They would wonder why we are even having this debate.

“Is there any wonder people think politicians are out of touch with ordinary people when we have debates such as this.

“It’s nonsense to suggest that we shouldn’t take into account the need for a father.”

But Labour’s Emily Thornberry (Islington South) warned that keeping the need for a father would cause confusion.

She said: “I always worry when people start saying they are only applying common sense, because, so often, common sense is a cover for discrimination, narrowness and an inability to face the 21st century.”

But Tory Sir Patrick Cormack (S Staffordshire) hit back: “Whatever may be the case in Islington, in Staffordshire it’s thought normal for a child to have a mother and a father.”

Heath Minister Dawn Primarolo said research showed children of same-sex couples did “similarly well” as those born of heterosexual donor-inseminated couples.

“What counts is the quality of parenting,” she stressed. “This House needs to face that proposition.”

But the DUP’s Iris Robinson told her: “Can you envisage a child going to primary school and being collected by two females or two males and the bullying and the abuse that these children will be exposed to? Or going into the parents’ bedroom and finding two women making love or two men making love? And that’s natural for a child to see?”

A series of Commons amendments last night gave MPs the chance to vote for a reduction in the current 24-week limit for abortions to between 22 and 12 weeks. They were the first sustained attempt to cut the time limit in 18 years.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries, who put forward the amendment to change the abortion laws, said she believed the right of a woman to choose had its limits.

She said: “If a baby feels pain as part of a barbaric abortion process – which is what happens post-20 weeks – and if we know that baby could live if it was allowed to be born, then there comes the point when that baby has rights which are of equal parity to the mother’s.”

Ian Lucas, campaign manager of the Pro Life Group, claimed support was growing over a cut to 22 weeks, a proposal favoured by Tory leader David Cameron.
www.express.co.uk/posts/view/45162/Written-out-of-the-law-a-child-s-right-to-a-father



Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.