Sunday, February 26, 2006

Civil War in Iraq: Who Benefits?

The last couple of days the Bush Regime (and others safely out of the line of fire) have sounded warnings about the dangers of civil war in Iraq. It is time to ask those pesky questions, Who benefits? and Where has the money been coming from? This author has interesting answers to the first question. This comes courtesy of Cal S. (thanks). I have added the link to the author's website.

Email intro:


Please feel free to publish or circulate my latest article.



Civil War in Iraq: Who are the Winners and Who are the Losers

"We have widespread evidence that the outside forces are attempting to instigate a civil war here and Iraqis are conscious of that and have made determined effort not to respond to it" (Dr. Saad Jawad, a political scientist at Baghdad University.)

When a crime is committed, the obvious question to ask is: what was the primary motive and who stands to benefit. The answers would lead to building up a list of suspects. Therefore, at the very least, let us ask the obvious questions before apportioning blame to a particular community or group. Almost everyone concurs that, the primary motive behind the bombings of the Askariyah shrine was to ignite civil war along sectarian lines. The main beneficiary would be the US led coalition forces, as they would face less resistance due to the Sunni-Shia infighting. A deeply divided Iraqi population is less able to channel and focus their collective opposition against the US-led invaders.

It is an axiom that power in the international arena is always determined by the power of rival nations. Naturally, if civil war in Iraq ignites, that would further weaken its position in relation to Israel; another significant beneficiary of a civil war. Logic dictates that the primary suspects behind the bombings of the Askariyah shrines are the US, UK and Israel, most likely a joint CIA, MI5 and Mossad operation. Many would simply dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, but remember to suit the interests of the state, political analysis are often dismissed as conspiracy theory or disseminated by the state as a legitimate point of view.

As expected, the western dominated media wasted no time in blaming the ubiquitous Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Musab Al-Zarqawi and the likes. Blaming the Sunni-led Iraqi resistance for the recent bombings is bizarre, as they have the most to lose from a civil war, as explained above. The city of Samara where the Askariyah shrine is located was under the control of Sunni-Arab resistance, but the Shi’ites places were never attacked, the same can be said for other places that the Sunni-Arab resistance was in control of. Moreover Islamic laws clearly prohibit attacking any place of worship, e.g. Mosques (Sunni or Shi’ites), Churches and Synagogues.

If you examine the mass media, the statements from political commentators to senior politicians, they are the ones who have been promoting the idea of a civil war; it has been constantly on their lips, and constantly amplified by the media. From the onset of the invasion the occupational forces have tried to inflame the sectarian violence to ignite a civil war. It was they who constantly talked about dividing Iraq into the three regions, by constantly alluding to Sunni-Arabs and Shi’ites-Arabs and Kurds (note majority Kurds are also Sunnis). To incite the Shi’ites, they kept reminding them of how the minority Sunni-Arabs have dominated the country for centuries. Likewise, to incite the Kurds, they kept reminding them of their rights over the Kirkuk oil fields and the domination by the Arabs for centuries. Indeed, divide and rule has always been a very effective colonial tool.

Accordingly, the US began to appoint people on the basis of promoting a sectarian conflict. They filled the military, police and other influential positions largely with the Shi’ites and the Kurds. The US forces used these sectarian based militias to attack the Sunni dominated town of Fallujah and other similar towns; this naturally incited the Sunni-Arabs. Then, elections were held under US occupation, which clearly favoured the groups that provided the least resistance to the US occupational forces. Only recently dead bodies of Sunnis were discovered, tortured to death by the Shi’ite dominated regime.

The US hoped that Shia-Sunni schisms would eventually surface - when this did not occur they tried to ignite it themselves. The bombings of Shi’ite Mosques and other similar places were never carried out by the Sunni-led resistance, and no genuine group came forward to admit this. In fact, most of the killings and kidnappings have been blamed on a particular community with little or no evidence in order to incite sectarian feuds, hoping that it would culminate into a full scale civil war. This was largely part of the counter-insurgency activity; and clearest evidence for it was shown by the capture of the two British soldiers last September, who were dressed as Arabs armed with explosives and remote detonations.

Can anyone explain how it would server the interest of any Iraqi group by killing so many Iraqi academics, which the main stream press have kept quiet about? Not surprisingly, many of Iraq’s senior nuclear scientists have been eliminated. Is this the work of the Sunni-led resistance? Nuclear scientists are an asset to any nation. Another clear proof of the coalition forces engaged in terrorism and counter-insurgency activities.

Fortunately, many of the Iraqis have realised the conspiracy to ignite civil war and have resisted all the provocations to their full credit. It is commendable that both Sunni and Shi’ite leaders have called for restraint, and have denied that Sunnis were behind the bombings as no clear evidence has been provided. Another pertinent point is that, in its entire history, Iraq’s sectarian-based conflict never took place, so why should it erupt now? If it does, it cannot be down to coincidence but directly related to the designs of the foreign occupational forces as they have the most to benefit from a civil war.

Some of the Shi’ites are angry towards Sunnis as they are the prime suspect in their eyes, but most have started to blame the US and Israel. Even it is found that some extreme Sunnis were behind the bombings, primary blame still lies with the US, because there were no such attacks prior to the war. The war and the subsequent occupation created the climate for such types of attack.

Moqtada as-Sadr has called on the Sunnis to join the Shi’ites in condemning those Sunnis who have attacked Shi’ite places, but how many have called on the Shi’ite to join the Sunni-led resistance. On the contrary, seeking sectarian interests, Shi’ites and Kurds have provided the greatest level of cooperation to the US forces. For example, Ayatollah Sistani, the most influential Shi’ite scholar in Iraq ordered his followers not to resist the US forces, therefore implicitly aiding the US forces against the Iraqi resistance. He was treacherously silent over Abu-Ghraib and the Fallujah massacre. Therefore, by his conduct, he participated in killing the men, women and children in Fallujah alongside the Americans.

Shi’ites ought to consider the point that anyone cooperating with the US is a legitimate target for the Iraqi resistance. Hence, the Sunni-led resistance targeted all collaborators, Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds. Attacks were never driven by ones sectarian identity but the degree of cooperation with the US-led forces.

Many of the commentators view the recent events in the context of the US preparing for an attack on Iran.

* Recent bombings of the holy shrines were designed to ignite a civil war and give the US an excuse to drag Iran into the conflict or initiate an attack on her.

* The Danish cartoon incident was engineered by the neo-cons behind the scene to magnify the anti-Islamic climate in Europe, which would reduce the level of opposition in Europe, if Iran is attacked jointly by the US and Israel.

* The nuclear crisis with Iran is always looming to escalate even though Iran has not violated the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) treaty. Clearly the crisis has been manufactured by the West as pretext to attack Iran and like Iraq’s WMD it is a lie.

* Finally, Iran’s oil is now being traded in euros instead of the US dollar and they are preparing to establish an oil bourse to trade oil using the euro – this will threaten to eradicate the petro-dollar, and weaken the US dollar significantly, posing a serious threat to the US economy and its super power status. No wonder Iran is part of the axis of evil. This may be the most significant reason behind the conflict with Iran.

Yamin Zakaria (

London, UK

Copyright © 2006 by Yamin Zakaria

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Economic Hit Man--Or Con Man?

Since I've cited the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins more than once in articles, this revelation courtesy of Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief is a bit disturbing, to say the least. In the interests of honesty--of always portraying the fact when things don't add up--I am posting the whole thing here for readers to check out for themselves. Joel Skousen's interpolated comments make sense, and suggest that Perkins might be just another shill--with Confessions a disinformational piece put out to divert our attention while the globalists continue doing the very things they have been doing elsewhere. Wouldn't somebody with real inside information and the motivation to help shut down this whole thing have named names, so that the heavy hitters could be targeted and, if possible, prosecuted? Would they have talked to Perkins if he really was a turncoat out to expose them? (Question of my own: wouldn't Perkins himself be in hiding?) Good questions, all!

JOHN PERKINS: "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" OR CON MAN?
World Affairs Brief, February 24, 2006

John Perkins claims to be a disaffected "Economic Hit Man," an economic saboteur working for the NSA under cover of an investment banking firm on Wall Street. Let's examine his claims. Many are true in a general sense, but the whole story itself is a disinformation piece, in that it claims to be a tell-all version of globalist corruption from the perspective of an insider. Perkins makes enough specific errors to indicate he claims more than he really participated in. It is my opinion that Perkins is a plant who still works for the PTB, and that he only tells enough to inflame the left to continue its battle against the so-called right wing global domination agenda. Meanwhile, he carefully protects all the key players so that no one can be prosecuted. Someone who really wanted to kill this evil system of globalist economic control would name names and tell of detailed conversations. In short, the story Perkins weaves is meant merely to create limited hype amount the minorities opposed to US global imperialism, while protecting the actual players from legal prosecution.

In a recent interview with the leftist Democracy Now organization, Amy Goodman discusses with Perkins what it means to be an economic hit man. Excerpts of her interview follow, with [my comments in brackets].

JOHN PERKINS: Well, what we've done -- we use many techniques, but probably the most common is that we'll go to a country that has resources that our corporations covet, like oil [This is part disinformation, making it look like simple "greedy capitalism." He fails to mention the real motive: globalist governmental control of nations. Oil and resources are merely part of the payoff to corporate participants in this globalist conspiracy], and we'll arrange a huge loan to that country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters, but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build huge infrastructure projects [through Export/Import Bank loans] in that country: power plants, highways, ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be repaid [He's playing to the left again. The poor are only the last of a long line of sufferers. They don't pay for the loans directly, but businesses and the middle class do, through taxes and regulatory roadblocks to free enterprise. The poor suffer at the end of the process, being downstream of the lack of job creation as new businesses are strangled by high interest rates, high inflationary monetary policies and shortages of foreign exchange], and they're huge loans, and the repayment of them means that the poor won't get education, health, and other social services [as if that were their "right". Actually, all socialist countries do provide these corrupting benefits, just never enough to satisfy socialists like Perkins], and the country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we economic hit men, to this country and say, 'Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world such as Iraq.' [It is never this overt. Much is done by forcing some free reforms, which aren't bad except when steered exclusively toward big corporations, connected to globalism.] And in that way, we've managed to build a world empire with very few people actually knowing that we've done this...

JOHN PERKINS: We economic hit men, during the last 30 or 40 years, have really created the world's first truly global empire, and we've done this primarily through economics, and the military only coming in as a last resort. Therefore, it's been done pretty much secretly. Most of the people in the United States have no idea that we've created this empire and, in fact, throughout the world it's been done very quietly, unlike old empires, where the army marched in; it was obvious. So I think the significance of the things you discussed, the fact that over 80% of the population of South America recently voted in an anti-U.S. president and what's going on at the World Trade Organization, ... is that people are beginning to understand that the middle class and the lower classes around the world are being terribly, terribly exploited by what I call the corporatocracy, which really runs this empire. [But the corporate controllers are only working for the larger controllers, who are globalists -- a fact that Perkins surely understands.]

AMY GOODMAN: And you worked for?

JOHN PERKINS: I was recruited by the National Security Agency, the one that's in the news so much today because of spying on people, and I was tested by them, recruited by them -- I had connections through my wife with people in the agency, and they put me through a series of tests, personality tests, lie detector, several days, and concluded that I would make a good economic hit man [Baloney. He's leaving out all the specifics about training in the theory of establishing the NWO. You don't get to be an "economic hit man" until you've, first, worked up an unprincipled past, and second, been trained specifically on how the US control system works through "private corporations." This story is a fraud by what is missing -- not by what he does say, which is limited], and they also discovered a number of weaknesses in my character, which they could use then to hook me into the business, and then I ended up working for a private corporation. [So why aren't they using blackmail on him now, if he really is a whistleblower? Better yet, why haven't they made the least effort to pressure his establishment publisher? Simple: This who story is approved for distribution.]

AMY GOODMAN: Why didn't you work for the N.S.A.?

JOHN PERKINS: Because these days it's not done that way. Nobody wants to be able to connect the dots. So the N.S.A., the C.I.A., these types of organizations often recruit economic hit men and the jackals, the assassins, the 007 types, but they will recruit us, maybe train us, and then turn us over to a private corporation, so that you really can't make the connection, so that if I were caught at what I was doing in one of these countries, it would not reflect on our government; it would only reflect on the corporation that I worked for [very true]. I worked for a company called Charles T. Main, a big consulting firm out of Boston [and that's the closest we get to naming names].

AMY GOODMAN: And your job?

JOHN PERKINS: The other thing we do, Amy, and what's going on right now in Latin America is that as soon as one of these anti-American presidents is elected, such as Evo Morales, who you mentioned, in Bolivia, one of us goes in and says, "Hey, congratulations, Mr. President. Now that you're president, I just want to tell you that I can make you very, very rich, you and your family. We have several hundred million dollars in this pocket if you play the game our way. If you decide not to, over in this pocket, I've got a gun with a bullet with your name on it, in case you decide to keep your campaign promises and throw us out."

AMY GOODMAN: Well, explain actually how that plays out, because it's not really in this pocket and that.

JOHN PERKINS: No, it's -- what I'm saying is that, you know, I can make sure that this man makes a great deal of money, he and his family, through contracts, through various quasi-legal means [He can't do all this by working for Charles T. Main consulting. Only the black side of government can set up what he is claiming, so there is much he's not telling], and I can also -- if he doesn't accept this, you know, the same thing is going to happen to him that happened to Jaime Roldos in Ecuador and Omar Torrijos in Panama and Allende in Chile, and we tried to do it to Chavez in Venezuela and are still trying -- that we will send in the people to try to overthrow him, as, in fact, we recently did with the President of Ecuador, or if we don't overthrow him, we'll assassinate him. And these people all know the history. They know that this has happened many, many, many times in the past. [The reasons for assassinating are much more complex than what he is explaining, and have more to do with controlling or whittling down the power of outright Communists, and replacing them with globalists. Also, his implied claim of moral conscience confessing all this doesn't wash. No moral people are allowed into this trade. There are no defectors, and if there were, they would be dead. Perkins is lying about his benevolent motives.]

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what happened to Torrijos, for example, in Panama, and what did you have to do with it?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, this was back in the '70s, and Torrijos was making a lot of world headlines, because he was demanding that the Panama Canal be turned back over to Panamanians. [That's because Torrijos was deeply involved in the Communist movement, which wanted control of the Canal -- not because he was a populist.] I was sent down to Panama to bring him around, to convince him that he needed to play the game our way. And he invited me to a little bungalow outside of Panama City, and he said, "Look, you know, I know the game, and if I play it your way, I'll become very rich, but that's not important to me. What is important is that I help my poor people." [This is bunk. In his interview Perkins portrays every communist as a soft-hearted liberal who loves the people. Pure propaganda.] Now, Torrijos wasn't an angel, but he was very committed to his poor people. So he said, "You can either play the game my way, or you can leave this country." And I talked to my bosses, and we all decided I should stay. Maybe I could bring him around. [More bunk.] I liked Torrijos, and one of the reasons I wanted to bring him around was not just because it was my job, but because I wanted to see him survive, and because he didn't come around, sure enough, he was assassinated... Fiery airplane crash, and afterwards, there was no question that -- he had been handed a tape recorder as he got on the plane that had a bomb in it [True, but this detailed knowledge implicates Perkins more deeply as an unprincipled insider -- not as the cringing moralist he paints himself to be. I never trust people who come out of active participation in the dark side.] ... [W]e also tried to do that to Saddam Hussein. When he didn't come around, the economic hit men tried to bring him around. We tried to assassinate him. But that was an interesting point, because he had pretty loyal security forces, and in addition he had a lot of look-alike doubles, and what you don't want is [for] a bodyguard [to be] a look-alike double and you think it's the president and you accept a lot of money to assassinate him and you assassinate the look-alike, because if you do that, afterwards your life and your family's isn't worth very much, so we were unable to get through to Saddam Hussein, and that's why we sent the military in. [More baloney. He's only making a case only for greed and money. The real reason Saddam was targeted was short-term control of Iraqi oil, and long-term military bases in an area crucial to US plans of more Muslim intervention and antagonism -- like Iran and Syria.]

AMY GOODMAN: As a consultant, you did work in Saudi Arabia, John Perkins?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, yes, in fact I put -- I was one of the ones responsible for putting together the main deal there in the early ''70s. [I think he's fibbing here, as his erroneous statements below will show.] As you may recall, Amy, OPEC decided that they were going to clamp down on us, shut off our oil supplies. They didn't like our policies towards Israel, and so in the early '70s, the supply of oil was cut way back in this country. We had long lines of cars at the gas stations, and we were afraid we were going to go to another depression like the one that started in 1929 [gross exaggeration], so the Treasury Department came to me and some other economic hit men and said, "Look, this is unacceptable." And I give all the details of this in the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, but the short version is, they said, "Make sure that this doesn't happen again," and we knew that the key to stopping this sort of thing was Saudi Arabia, because it controlled more oil than anyone else and the Royal House of Saud was corruptible. So again, the short version [always his excuse to avoid naming names] is we put together a deal whereby the House of Saud agreed to send almost all of the money it made from selling oil all over the world back to the U.S., invest it in U.S. government securities [no, this was already standard procedure for all oil producing nations that had billion of petro dollars], the interest from those securities was used by the Treasury Department to hire U.S. companies to rebuild Saudi Arabia, power plants, desalinization plants. [More baloney. This shows he is inventing facts. The interest was always automatically payable to the Saudis just as all other bond holders. The Saudis, not the Treasury Dept, used petro-dollars to finance their infrastructure moves.] And the other part of the deal was the House of Saud agreed to keep the price of oil within limits acceptable to us, and we agreed to keep the House of Saud in power, and that deal still holds. It's been holding for a long time. [Yes, there is a pact to "keep them in power", but it's a deal about playing along with US globalist objectives, and not tied directly to the price of oil.] ...

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was one of the speakers at the World Social Forum in Brazil in last February [shows he is playing to the far left. No one gets invited to this radical group unless you're on the left and projecting an anti-American image], and a man asked to meet with me who was a very high advisor to Lula. And he said, "You know, what you say in your book is all very true, but you just -- that's just the tip of the iceberg." He said, "You know, from the time I was a very young man, I was quite radical. And it was interesting to me, as I was going through university, how much sex, drugs, booze were available to me in the parties that I was invited to, and so on. And now that I'm in this position of power, I discover that somebody was taking pictures of all those things, that there's a record of this." And he says, "You don't realize how all-pervasive your Secret Services are. It's recruiting, in their own way, young people, even those that are extreme socialists and communists. Your people befriend us from very early ages and get a lot of information on us. So when we become high up in the government, they basically -- " And I said, "They blackmail you?" [As if Perkins didn't know this?!] And he said, "Well, you could use the word 'blackmail,' but I think I would prefer [is] 'modern U.S. diplomacy.'" [This sounds like Perkins talking -- not a Brazilian.] And I asked him, I said, "Well, is Lula a part of this?" [More Perkins playing dumb. If he is the insider he claimed, he would know everything that the US has on Lula.] And he obviously didn't really want to answer this question. He hesitated, and he said, "Let me just say that nobody gets to power in Brazil these days without being very willing to make compromises to your corporations and your government." [Again, Perkins is putting words in his mouth.] He said, "I think Lula's a very, very good man [more propaganda Perkins is anxious to promote. Lula is a radical Communist masquerading as a moderate], but he also has to deal with reality. And certainly, he's been watched all of his life, and I'm sure he's had the same temptations I did."

AMY GOODMAN: And he's also engulfed in a major corruption scandal, which, for many of his long-time supporters, Brazilians and outside, are raising a lot of questions.

JOHN PERKINS: And I think the fact that the scandal has come out and has been blown into such proportions [What does he mean, blown out of proportion? The scandals are much worse than what has been revealed, and Lulu is as corrupt as the rest] is an indication that someone is sending Lula a very strong message. Incidentally, the jackal -- I'll call him -- that was working with Gutierrez of Ecuador said to me, "You know, this isn't limited to other countries. This happens in your country, too. Don't you think that the assassination of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King and John Lennon and others like that, and the many senators that have died in airplane crashes and other things, has sent a strong message to your politicians? And don't you think that --' [True enough, but now Perkins is feeding the right-wing side of his audience some conspiracy info they already know. It helps to endear both the left and far right to his alluring message.]

AMY GOODMAN: Would you care to share his name [the Jackal]?

JOHN PERKINS: No. I'll let him do that at some point, if he feels it's appropriate. Right now, he doesn't feel it's appropriate. He's still in the business. And so, many of these people are still very -- even the ones that have retired are getting pensions, and they've got loyalties, some of them. So, they'll talk to me on the side and say, "I want you to put this in your book, but I'm not ready to talk." [Baloney. No true insider would talk to Perkins if he were a real traitor to the system. They would know his every move would be surveilled.] A couple of them I am working with to write a book, and my literary agent is working with them. [Sure! As if there this could be done without discovery.] So hopefully some of them will come clean. [Again, Perkins keeps making this case like these guys have a conscience and want to tell the truth. That's a lot of garbage. These guys are really evil, and have million dollar retreats in Colorado as part of their retirement packages. They aren't going to risk losing it all and getting a bullet in the head over a fit of conscience.]" [End of Democracy Now excerpt.]

Friday, February 24, 2006

Our Globalist President's Port Deal Larger Than We Thought

This just in, from This Administration is at least as bad at lying as the Clinton Administration was, if not actually worse under the circumstances. Of course, globalism is considerably further along now than it was during the Clinton presidency. This entire ports deal should be understood in light of the Administration's commitment to a global world order, what I've been calling the Emerging New World Order. This is from a mainstream source, not Conspiracy Planet.

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports
UPI Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover.

[For the rest of the story, go here.]

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Bank For International Settlements Calls for Global Currency

This would be a major direction forward for the rapidly emerging New World Order.

BIS Calls For Global Currency
Nazi bankrollers want elimination of national sovereignty for world cashless control grid

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison | February 21 2006

The scandal-ridden and highly secretive Bank For International Settlements, considered to be the world's top central banking policy, has released a policy paper that calls for the end of national currencies in favor of a global model of currency formats.

The BIS is a branch of the of the Bretton-Woods International Financial architecture and closely allied with the Bilderberg Group. It is controlled by an inner elite that represents all the world's major central banking institutions. John Maynard Keynes, perhaps the most influential economist of all time, wanted it closed down as it was used to launder money for the Nazis in World War II.

Buried in a London Telegraph report on UK inflation rates is the admission that the BIS, "has also suggested ditching many national currencies in favour of a small number of formal currency blocks based on the dollar, euro and renminbi or yen."

Centralized control of currency is a keystone pillar in the construction of global government.

The eventual goal is a cashless society credit system based on a worldwide citizen ID. Those designated as subversives or security threats will have their credit entitlement reduced and restrictions will be placed on when and what they can buy or sell. A world tax will be levied on all purchases.

In the meantime new denominations of paper money will be tracked and traced. Euro notes come with RFID tags as standard and the same feature is being incorporated into newly designed US dollar notes.

Last month the United Nations made a promise to save the world from all its ills in return for complete elimination of national sovereignty and financial markets and their replacement by a proxy world government.

The so-called 'conservative Bush administration have done everything in their power to destroy the last vestiges of American sovereignty, including increasing deficit spending beyond the level of all previous 42 administrations put together, signing legislation anathema to the Constitution, promoting global government and anti-American trade deals like CAFTA and the FTAA, and attempting to 'solve' the illegal immigration problem by enacting blanket amnesty.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

The Slow Poisoning of America

This is a little bit off the beaten track, but important nevertheless for its main implication: we can no more trust the food industry than we can the Federal Government or the mainstream corporate media. Years ago, people who had previously been healthy began to get sick--repeatedly. Doctors (who weren't trained in nutrition) were unable to find anything wrong. Many of us--my mother and myself included--have negative reactions to Monosodium Glutamate (MSG). My mother gets sicker than a dog from eating food laced with MSG. The additive makes my heart race uncomfortably, so although I don't get sick from it I'd prefer not to eat food with MSG in it. Probably sickness from it is in my future unless by some miracle it is gotten rid of. These days I will leave a restaurant if I learn that it serves food full of MSG. This is the only way, apparently, for ordinary people to communicate the message that they don't want in their food a chemical that is, first off, very addictive, will make them fat, and slowly poison their system.

Researcher John Erb revealed the truth about MSG in a book entitled The Slow Poisoning of America, which turns out to be relatively hard to obtain (it isn't listed on the site--I checked). One hopes for a list of all the alternative names MSG probably goes under.

Now, of course, the food industry is moving to protect itself using its controlled stooges in Congress. It's called the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act." Now there's a title and a half for you, since it works under the assumption that people can take personal responsibility for knowledge that is being systematically kept from them.

I might order the book tomorrow. Stay tuned. This, meanwhile, comes courtesy of Cal S.


I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive obesity epidemic, so did a friend of mine, John Erb.

He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and spent years working for the government.

He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow Poisoning of America. In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies.

No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so the scientists have to create them. They make these morbidly obese creatures by injecting them with MSG when they are first born. The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats (and humans?) to become obese they even have a title for the race of fat rodents they create: "MSG-Treated Rats" MSG?

I was shocked too. I went to my kitchen, checking the cupboards and the fridge. MSG was in everything! The Campbell's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen, Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, Kraft salad dressings, especially the 'healthy low fat' ones. The items that didn't have MSG had something called Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein, which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate. It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff. They hide MSG under many different names in order to fool those who catch on.

But it didn't stop there. When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu items had MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list which they grudgingly provided, sure enough MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere. Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant, even the sit down ones like TGIF, Chilis', Applebees and Denny's use MSG in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG as in every chicken dish, salad dressing and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin, their secret spice was MSG!

So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat? Is it a preservative or a vitamin? Not according to my friend John. In the book he wrote, an expose of the food additive industry called The Slow Poisoning of America,, he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body. Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG at: explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.

A study of elderly people showed that people eat more of the foods that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobby group says eating more benefits the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?

'Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?

The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added. Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance!

Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the prepackaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.

The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it is safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these?

The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity (Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA. Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002

Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats. Guimaraes RB, Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori RC, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro Brain Res Bull. 2002 Aug

Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously
hypertensive rats: an animal model of multiple risk factors. Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar

Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in suckling period and subsequent development of obesity. Tanaka K, Shimada M, Nakao K, Kusunoki Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct

Yes, that last study was not a typo, it WAS written in 1978.

Both the medical research community and food "manufacturers" have known MSG's side effects for decades! Many more studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to Diabetes, Migraines and headaches, Autism, ADHD and even Alzheimer's. But what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity epidemic we now see? Even as you read this, George W. Bush and his corporate supporters are pushing a Bill through Congress. Called the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" also known as the "Cheeseburger Bill "this sweeping law bans anyone from suing food manufacturers, sellers and distributors. Even if it comes out that they purposely added an
addictive chemical to their foods." Read about it for yourself at:

"Last month the House of Representatives passed the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" to protect the food and beverage industry from civil lawsuits. Under the measure, known as the "Cheeseburger Bill," people who buy food or drinks couldn't sue the companies that made them, the stores that sold them or the restaurants that served them if they got fat from the products, so long as the products met existing laws. The Senate is expected to take up a similar bill later this year."

The Bill has already been rushed through the House of Representatives, and is due for the same rubber stamp at Senate level. It is important that Bush and his corporate supporters get it through before the media lets everyone know about MSG, the intentional Nicotine for food.

Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of the highest government health officials in Canada. While sitting in the Government office, the official told him "Sure I know how bad MSG is, I wouldn't touch the stuff!" But this top-level government official refused to tell the public what he knew. The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing legal issues with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their profit margin.

So what do we do? The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it. Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive. But what can I do about it? I'm just one voice, what can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while guys like Bush are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us.

I for one am doing something about it. I am sending this email out to everyone I know in an attempt to show you the truth that the corporate owned politicians and media won't tell you. The best way you can help save yourself and your children from this drug-induced epidemic, is to forward this email to everyone. With any luck, it will circle the globe before Bush can pass the Bill protecting those who poisoned us. The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco had a
bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on Nicotine? Blow the
whistle on MSG. If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for us, and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine, at Type in the words "MSG Obese", and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.

We do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese, lethargic, addicted sheep, waiting for the slaughter. With your help we can put an end to this, and stop the Slow Poisoning of America.

Let's save our children says (John Erb) ...

Friday, February 17, 2006

The Growing Costs--and Consequences--of Neocon-Led Total War

Were the neocons to do the honest thing--don't anybody hold your breaths--they would simply declare Iraq to be the 51st state. Very worthwhile article, linked through What Really Happened?

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., OrbStandard

February 16, 2006

"To initiate a war of aggression is, therefore, not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, relating to "Count Two, the Crime of Aggression," as brought against Herman Goering, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and 14 other defendants.

In Mr. Bush's "State 0f The Union" address, he claimed that "US forces will be drawn down as Iraqi forces stand up." [1] However, this claim is flatly contradicted by the Pentagon's ongoing multibillion-dollar expenditures for the construction of 106 permanent bases - including six hi-tech "super-bases" - inside Iraq. [2]

Is there a reason why the USA's mainstream media won't report on those 106 bases, and why Congress won't debate the Pentagon's base-construction projects? The simplest answer is that the government-media complex has declared this subject taboo because it would reveal the USA's intention to militarily occupy Iraq for decades. [3]

Furthermore, Mr. Bush's quagmire in Iraq already has the USA hemorrhaging red ink. According to a recent study by the American Economic Association, the Bush administration's pre-war estimate of a $60 billion price-tag for the Iraq War was wildly unrealistic. The study concluded that the final bill for the Iraq War will actually be somewhere between ONE AND TWO TRILLION DOLLARS, depending on how much longer our troops stay. [4] And that staggering figure doesn't take into account its human costs in bloodshed and suffering. [5]

Realistically, Mr. Bush's "draw-down" rhetoric is merely a propaganda ploy in anticipation of the 2006 mid-term election, and the withdrawal won't be implemented. In all likelihood, those hi-tech "super-bases" will serve another purpose, which is to launch and monitor his next illegal war of aggression against Iraq's oil-rich neighbor, IRAN. [6] Of course, the Bush administration will reassure us, during its pre-war propaganda campaign, that their petro-state invasion is absolutely necessary, and isn't merely another "blood-for-oil" scenario through which their wealthy war-profiteering cronies will further enrich themselves at our expense (and some naive Americans will actually believe them).

So where is this nation's foreign policy headed? In the short run, Mr. Bush is already attempting to expand his "wartime commander-in-chief powers" to despotic dimensions, so he can - among other things - autonomously order the commencement of a "might-makes-right" aggressive war against Iran, thus giving Republicans yet another "national security" cudgel to swing during the upcoming mid-term election. [7]

Additionally, it's foreseeable that Mr. Bush's dictatorial assumption of extra-constitutional powers will elicit a strong negative reaction domestically, and that he'll use these protests as his excuse to declare martial law at home. In the long run, it's foreseeable that his cynical militarization of US foreign policy will bankrupt this nation - morally, legally, politically and economically. [8]

BEFORE these things happen, we should be asking ourselves: "Does might make right?" According to the principles of Just War Theory and international law, the answer is a resounding "NO!" [9] BEFORE these things happen, we should have the moral courage to pro-actively pursue every legitimate preventive measure that is available to us in a democracy. BEFORE these things happen, we should try the constitutionally-prescribed remedy of impeachment and - if it becomes necessary - collective acts of nonviolent civil disobedience on a massive scale everywhere. [10]

Finally, every citizen should know that the plain language of the US Constitution empowers Congress to impeach any president who commits a war crime in violation of the USA's treaty obligations under international law. Here's how:

(a) in Article VI, Paragraph 2, of the US Constitution, the "Supremacy Clause" declares that Senate-ratified treaties are "the supreme law of the land"; and
(b) Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the US Constitution, Congress is empowered to "punish...offenses against the law of nations." In short, Congress may punish the president for committing war crimes in violation of Senate-ratified treaties and conventions. Therefore, Congress may impeach, convict, and remove Mr. Bush from office for committing the supreme crime when he ordered the commencement of an aggressive war against Iraq. [11]



[1] One of Mr. Bush's first claims during his State Of The Union speech on 1-31-06.

[2] Tom Englehart's 2-14-06 TD essay, "A Permanent Basis For War: Can You Say 'Permanent Bases'? The American Press Can't" [Gives details about the Pentagon's construction of 106 permanent bases, and 6 hi-tech "super bases," inside Iraq.]:

[3] Ibid.

[4] Linda Bilmes & Joseph Stiglitz's 1-17-06 CD/LAT essay, "War's Stunning Price Tag" [An objective economic study has concluded that Bush's Iraq War will cost the USA between $1 and $2 TRILLION.]:

[5] Eric Leaver's 2-9-06 CD/Sun-Sentinel essay, "Why 2,245 Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg" [Cites statistics on human suffering and monetary expenditures to explain why the Iraq War's costs are much higher than the government-media complex is reporting.]:

[6] Bob Burnett's 2-13-06 CD essay, "Iran - Deja Vu All Over Again" [Reports there are objective indicators that Mr. Bush is planning to commence an aerial-and-commando invasion of Iran this spring, then explains why this plan isn't a good idea.]:

[7] A. Al Gore's 1-16-06 speech transcript, "We, The People, Must Save Our Constitution" (with 26 endnotes on impeachment by Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.) [Our former VP's speech is NOT merely political; liberals and conservatives agree that it's a brilliant analysis of the USA's very real Constitutional crisis; he recommends the appointment of a special prosecutor, which is a precursor to impeachment.]:

B. Brian Foley's 1-30-06 Jurist essay, "The Real Danger Of Presidential Spying" [FCLS Law Professor uses excellent hypotheticals to explain why presidential spying on American citizens is dangerous: it chills the independent exercise of free speech among potential political rivals, journalists and activists who would otherwise balance, oppose, or constrain the imperial expansions of executive power that lead to dictatorship.]:

[8] Two excellent essays provide critiques of the Bushites' militarization of America:

A. Peter Phillips' 2-9-06 CD essay, "Is US Military Dominance Of The
World A Good Idea?" [Excellent statistics-based argument against the militarization of US foreign policy.]:

B. Henry Giroux's 1-3-06 DV essay, "The New Authoritarianism In The United States" [Especially see his fourth anti-democratic dogma: the ongoing militarization of every aspect of public life, in which he cites numerous authors with the same viewpoint.]:

[9] A. NCCB's 11-17-93 essay, "The Church's Teaching On War And Peace: The Harvest Of Justice Is Sown In Peace" [Pope John Paul II officially notified Messrs. Bush and Blair that the Roman Catholic Church opposed the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq because it violated the principles of Just War Theory. This essay emphasizes that Christianity's role should be that of a peacemaker. Especi ally see Section 1 B, "Two Traditions: Nonviolence And Just War". Contrast this with the American Religious Right's false "holy warrior Jesus."]:

B. Alexander Moseley's essay, defining "Just War Theory," in the International Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

[10] Jamin Raskin's 2-14-06 TP essay, "Impeach: Yes, But..." [American University Law Professor explains the grounds for impeaching Mr. Bush, then why it's imperative that the American people take personal responsibility for launching the impeachment process - in the moral, electoral, and Congressional sense - against Mr. Bush and his minions.]:

[11]. A. The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg defined the decision by 16 German national leaders to commence an aggressive war as follows: "The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression is, therefore, not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." For the Nuremberg Judgment's full text, see:

In other words, "aggressive war" is state-sponsored terrorism on a massive scale. Hence, national leaders who commit the supreme international crime by giving the orders to commence an aggressive war will be held legally responsible for every war crime that their belligerents subsequently commit - and that most definitely includes Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

B. Nicholas Davies' 12-31-04 essay, "The Crime Of War: From Nüremberg To Fallujah" [Excellent history of the crime of aggressive war, and application to the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of

C. TJSL Law Professor Marjorie Cohn's 11-9-04 TO essay, "Aggressive War:
Supreme International Crime":


Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the American Center for International Law ("ACIL"). His essays on international law, human rights, civil liberties, politics, theology and ethics have been published by more than 30 websites worldwide. Readers are encouraged to forward this essay to your friends, relatives and colleagues.

© 2006 EAP IIII

:: Article nr. 20685 sent on 16-feb-2006 20:26 ECT

:: The address of this page is :

:: The incoming address of this article is :

:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .

Ron Paul on the End of Our Dollar Hegemony

The dollar--having been debauched for years by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department--has lost 96 percent of its value since 1913, which over half of this loss being since 1971, the year President Richard Milhaus Nixon took the dollar completely off the gold standard. Now, foreign leaders able to do so are turning away from our increasingly valueless dollar. More reason for thinking the colossal war brewing in the Middle East is over the need by Western power elites to prevent nations like Iran from switching to other currencies, especially the euro. Not a perfect explanation, but surely one deserving of a place at the table. Here is Ron Paul's entire speech before the House of Representatives, possible destined for classic status.

The End of Dollar Hegemony

by Ron Paul

Before the US House of Representatives, February 15, 2006

A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.

First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn’t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin – always hoping their subjects wouldn’t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations – those with powerful armies and gold – strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.

Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: “He who prints the money makes the rules” – at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people – just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.

The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one’s actions is rejected.

When paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules – rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.

“Dollar Diplomacy,” a policy instituted by William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was designed to enhance U.S. commercial investments in Latin America and the Far East. McKinley concocted a war against Spain in 1898, and (Teddy) Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine preceded Taft’s aggressive approach to using the U.S. dollar and diplomatic influence to secure U.S. investments abroad. This earned the popular title of “Dollar Diplomacy.” The significance of Roosevelt’s change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere “appearance” that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official U.S. government “obligation” to protect our commercial interests from Europeans.

This new policy came on the heels of the “gunboat” diplomacy of the late 19th century, and it meant we could buy influence before resorting to the threat of force. By the time the “dollar diplomacy” of William Howard Taft was clearly articulated, the seeds of American empire were planted. And they were destined to grow in the fertile political soil of a country that lost its love and respect for the republic bequeathed to us by the authors of the Constitution. And indeed they did. It wasn’t too long before dollar “diplomacy” became dollar “hegemony” in the second half of the 20th century.

This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself.

Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress – while benefiting the special interests that influence government.

Dollar dominance got a huge boost after World War II. We were spared the destruction that so many other nations suffered, and our coffers were filled with the world’s gold. But the world chose not to return to the discipline of the gold standard, and the politicians applauded. Printing money to pay the bills was a lot more popular than taxing or restraining unnecessary spending. In spite of the short-term benefits, imbalances were institutionalized for decades to come.

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world’s reserve currency. The dollar was said to be “as good as gold,” and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.

The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question – until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it – not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo–gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favorable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money – i.e. the dollar system – to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.

In recent years central banks and various financial institutions, all with vested interests in maintaining a workable fiat dollar standard, were not secretive about selling and loaning large amounts of gold to the market even while decreasing gold prices raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a policy. They never admitted to gold price fixing, but the evidence is abundant that they believed if the gold price fell it would convey a sense of confidence to the market, confidence that they indeed had achieved amazing success in turning paper into gold.

Increasing gold prices historically are viewed as an indicator of distrust in paper currency. This recent effort was not a whole lot different than the U.S. Treasury selling gold at $35 an ounce in the 1960s, in an attempt to convince the world the dollar was sound and as good as gold. Even during the Depression, one of Roosevelt’s first acts was to remove free market gold pricing as an indication of a flawed monetary system by making it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Economic law eventually limited that effort, as it did in the early 1970s when our Treasury and the IMF tried to fix the price of gold by dumping tons into the market to dampen the enthusiasm of those seeking a safe haven for a falling dollar after gold ownership was re-legalized.

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can’t fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing, while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to – all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems.

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that’s the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars – due to their depreciation – will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.

The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to “rule” the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble – generated by easy money – has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It’s bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979–1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.

Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged – as it already has been.

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It’s become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.

Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting “our” oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old-fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That’s not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony – it’s dominance as the world reserve currency – is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren’t aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the “tax” that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is, until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world’s reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar’s value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy “bread and circuses” just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don’t change our ways. Though we don’t occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don’t declare direct ownership of the natural resources – we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system – like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela – become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That’s why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It’s only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

February 17, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.

Ron Paul Archives

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Justice Scalia: Hero!

This man should have been made the Chief Justice. (What is John Roberts' actual judicial philosophy, anyway? Was he asked at any point? Does anyone know?) Thanks to Joan Masters for this.

Scalia jeers fans of 'living' charter
The Washington Times
February 15, 2006

PONCE, Puerto Rico (AP) -- People who think the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Justice Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."

"Scalia does have a philosophy; it's called originalism. That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," Justice Scalia told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

He said that, according to his judicial philosophy, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

Justice Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility, and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old, and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break.

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Justice Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living Constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility; they are looking for rigidity. Whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Justice Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who thought professors at the top law schools were too liberal.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Judge Alito Should Have Been Asked These Questions

At last, a voice of reason on what the (clueless) Senate Judiciary Committee should have been asking Judge Alito. In our dreams, of course. Thanks to Kevin J. Swindle for sending me this.

Judge Alito Should Have Been Asked These Questions
By Howard Phillips

The Covenant News ~ January 23, 2006

In observing the confirmation hearings of Judge Sam Alito, it was particularly disturbing to note all of the important Constitutional questions which were not asked. Were I a member of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, here are some of the questions I would have directed to the nominee:

1. What relation, in your view, does the Declaration of Independence bear to the Constitution of the United States?

2. Do you agree with the statement in the Declaration that "all Men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"?

3. The Preamble of the Constitution asserts that "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Do you agree that "We the People" are the source of authority for the Constitution and everything in it?

4. How do you interpret the term "promote the general Welfare"?

5. Article I, Section 1 says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States". Do you believe that legislative powers may be exercised by entities other than the Congress? What about the Federal Reserve? May it exercise legislative powers? What about regulatory agencies? What about the Civil Service? What about Presidential Executive Orders? What about international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO)? What about NAFTA? What about the Judiciary?

6. In the event of a national calamity, it is possible that many members of Congress may suffer death or disability. Article 1, Section 5 asserts that "a Majority of each [House] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business". In your view, how ought such a majority be defined? Would it be a majority of the living? A majority of those physically and mentally capable? What would it be?

7. Do you attach any religious significance to the language in Article I, Section 7 which, in defining the time available to the President to consider whether he shall veto a piece of legislation which has arrived on his desk, permits him "ten Days (Sunday excepted) after it shall have been presented to him". Is there a Christian premise to this language in the Constitution?

8. Article I, Section 8 says "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States". Do you believe that the power of Congress, as stipulated, is limited to those matters set forth in Article I, Section 8?

9. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations". Did Congress violate this provision in accepting U.S. participation in the WTO, in NAFTA, and in CAFTA?

10. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Does this not imply that our money shall be of fixed value, not subject to regulation by an entity such as the Federal Reserve?

11. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have Power…To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court". Does this not suggest that Congress also has the power to abolish Tribunals which it has constituted?

12. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have Power…To declare War". To what extent can the President intrude on this authority?

13. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". What is your understanding of the term "the Militia"?

14. Article I, Section 9 says "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State". During his tenure as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan accepted a title of nobility from the Queen of England. Did this violate, in your opinion, the Constitution, even though Congress had previously legislated a general waiver to this Constitutional restoration?


Since 1974, Howard Phillips has been Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, a non-partisan, nationwide grass-roots public policy advocacy group. Phillips has published four books: The New Right at Harvard (1983), Moscow's Challenge to U.S. Vital Interests in Sub-Saharan Africa (1987), The Next Four Years (1992), and Victory 2000 (1999). He was the recipient of the Strategic Resource Group's William Wilberforce Award for "Ministry to the Nation/Public Policy" in September, 1996; the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools Award, 1995; the Young Americans for Freedom "Alumnus of the Year" Award, 1990; the National Association of Pro-America 1983 Award for "promoting Constitutional government"; and the June, 1982 Eagle Forum Award, for leadership in the pro-family cause and "steadfast opposition to the mischief of the Federally financed feminists". In May, 2002, the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty conferred upon him the title of “Patriot”.


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

The End of the Second Party Movement

By the Power of the Purse, of course. My title presumes that in the Desert of the Real we live under one-party rule, whether you call our single party with two wings the Demopublican Party or just the Washington Party. Those running that party manifestly want to keep it that way. (I wonder if they think that whether due to our government's insane involvement in foreign wars or because of domestic issues such as chronic joblessness and underemployment those in power believe a credible challenge to their power could be mounted between now and 2008.)

This from the Libertarian Party (note the Orwellian title the Washington Party has given the bill introduced):

For Immediate Release Feb 10, 2006

Congress Attempts to Kill the "Third-Party Threat"

Proposed Legislation Creates Treasury-Funded Campaigns for the Two Major Parties, Leaving Third Parties with No Means to Run

(Washington, D.C.) On February 1, congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Obey of Wisconsin, introduced a bill, H.R. 4694, that would end viable, third-party competition in races for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill, ironically named the "Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act," would mandate public funds (taken from the U.S. Treasury) to candidates for the House of Representatives and forbid candidates from taking private funds such as contributions from individual donors.

The ambiguously-written bill provides funds for candidates of the "two major parties" but essentially scuttles any campaign efforts of third-party or independent candidates.

For third-party candidates to be eligible for the same funds that Republicans and Democrats would receive, they would have to obtain enough signatures to exceed 20% of votes cast in the last election within their district.

The catch under the proposed legislation is that third-party or independent candidates cannot pay petitioners to collect any signatures, making it impossible to fund their campaigns.

H.R. 4694 is yet another attempt by our politicians in office to shut down Libertarian Party candidates and other competitive third-party and independent campaigns.

"The Republican and Democratic parties exist to maintain power for their own benefit. The Libertarian Party exists to grasp power for the benefit of the nation," stated Shane Cory, chief of staff for the Libertarian Party. "American voters are waking up to this reality, and as they do, the two parties are trying everything within their power to shut us down."


Not only is Big Brother watching you, but he's making full use of what he observes with his cameras! Talk about Government tightening down the screws on We The People!! This just in from Nancy Levant, who received it from a contact in Illinois. I suppose if this garners revenue in Illinois it will start showing up in every state in our former Republic.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Sent to me from a friend who often drives to the Chicago area to visit her kids.... ~Cj

Illinois will begin using photo radar in freeway work zones in July. Second offense tickets are $1,000 with license suspension. Beginning in July the State of Illinois will use speed cameras in areas designated as "Work Zones" on major freeways.

Anyone caught by these devices will be mailed a $375.00 ticket for the FIRST offense, but he SECOND offense will cost $1000.00 and comes with a 90-Day suspension. Drivers will also receive demerit points against their license, which allows insurance companies to raise their rates.

This represents the harshest penalty structure yet for a city or state using PHOTO enforcements. The State will begin with TWO camera vans issuing tickets in work zones with speed limits lowered to 45 MPH. Photographs of both the Driver's face and License plate are taken.

Pass this on to everyone you ! know !!!!

for more info:

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?