ETERNAL VIGILANCE

Khodorkovsky Gets 9 Years in Prison

Jewish Oligarch was once the richest man in Russia; he’s now a convicted felon

By Moscow National Vanguard Correspondent
May 31, 2005, National Vanguard

Khorokovsky gloats no longer

Russian justice has prevailed against Jewish oligarch Mikhail Khorokovsky, once the richest man in Russia. The former head of the Yukos oil company will be spending the next 9 years in prison. His business partner Platon Lebedev was sentenced to 9 years as well.

Khodorkovsky’s lawyers have stated that they will appeal the ruling. When the verdict was announced, relatives of Khodorkovsky could hardly believe their ears. One of them yelled out: “How could you do that to a person?” They seem to have forgotten, or do not realize, the unimaginable suffering and pain Jewish oligarchs like Khodorkovsky have caused to the Russian nation.

The billionaire faced seven charges, including fraud, theft, and tax evasion. Prosecutors asked for a 10-year sentence, the maximum.

In an official statement from Yukos, the company called the sentence a "gross travesty of justice" and claimed that, for the vast majority, "this verdict is a tragic example of the authorities turning a law-enforcement and judicial system against an individual for political ends. We regret that the true value of his achievements have been sullied by those who refuse to appreciate the good he brought Russia." Millions of Russians might disagree.

Unfortunately, United States Congressman Tom Lantos immediately stated that Russia should be expelled from the G8 for convicting the Jewish oligarch. He said that he will table a draft resolution to Congress. “Russia shouldn’t be allowed to be considered a democratic country after the sentence,” he told reporters. “The centralization of power continues in Russia,” he added for good measure.

However, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office said it is "satisfied" with the court's ruling. It stated that the sentence corresponds with the actual circumstances of the case and the gravity of the crimes committed by the defendants.

Still, some people believe that the verdict was too mild. According to leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and Vice-Speaker of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky: "“People demand the death penalty or life imprisonment."

---

Editor's comment: The Russians are finished taking any guff from the Zionists or for that matter any of the former Bolshevists and adherents to the Communist ideology. Though collevtivism and socialism may not be dead, Communism as a political persuasion is, and Zionism in Russia will soon follow the same route.

Natalia Vishnyakova a spokeswoman for the Russian prosecutor's office said about Khodorkovsky, "Specific serious crimes were committed and have been proved. Astronomical sums were stolen."

We, in the West, will now be subjected to the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the controlled and compliant media that will accompany this action of the Russian criminal justice system as this piece from BBC shows.

The BBC article quotes Congressman Tom Lantos, who was evidently on hand for the sentencing in Moscow,

Outside the court, US Democrat congressman Tom Lantos said: "It seems that this political trial before a kangaroo court has come to a shameful conclusion.

"It is obvious that the conclusion of the trial was pre-determined politically and Mr Khodorkovsky could have been left at home and the trial could have been conducted without the prison circus."

Lantos has long been identified as a Zionist conspirator in the United States who is responsible for many assaults on liberty. And now he wishes to extend these insults he has made against American freedom to the Russians, who have long suffered under the yoke of oppression.

Lantos had better take a close look at what is going on in the U.S. and its history before he proceeds in the manner he intends.

This is sheer arrogance and to claim that Russia is aggregating central power in opposition to democratic ideals is to ignore completely the history of the U.S. in its fascist megalomaniacal rise in federal centralization of powers of the last 150 years, the worst of which has occured in the last 30 years.

Apparently, Lantos cannot accept that the cabal of Jewish oligarchs in Russia have been broken. Too bad, Tom, better luck next time, NOT! There may be a hangman for you in the future when the trials for treason against the American people commence at a later date.

We have corresponded with a few people in Russia recently and they all say without exception that the Russian people are with Putin as he continues to clean up these criminals. Russia has suffered grievously at the hands of the Zionist mafia who have plundered the wealth of Russia so severely so as to nearly cause it to cease to exist politically.

Putin has had great success at establishing a renewed tax base on corporate ventures and this action against Yukos and Khodorkovsky is just the start.

Corporations, as fictions of law, are created at the pleasure of the state and exist to serve the people. Anything outside this concept is unlawful and operates to the detriment of the public interest.

We intend that our political appointees and elected officials administer rightful and competent oversight of the corporate fictions of law that are created by the servants of the people as represnted by the state and federal legislatures. Any failure of oversight is a breach of fiducuiary duty and is also criminal negligence and incompetence.

Stronger governmental oversight of corporations and unremitting accountability is the only way to stem the tide of corporate flim-flams and make things right.

Russia is on the right track and the U.S. and the several states should take the hint and begin to prosecute corporate criminals.

Journalist urges Americans to search for truth, freedom

By Molly Bingham
May 8, 2005
Information Clearing House

We spent 10 months in Iraq, working on a story, understanding who the people are who are fighting, why they fight, what their fundamental beliefs are, when they started, what kinds of backgrounds they come from, what education, jobs they have. Were they former military, are they Iraqi or foreign? Are they part of al-Qaida? What we came up with is a story in itself, and one that Vanity Fair ran in July 2004 with my text and pictures. [My colleague Steve Connors] shot a documentary film that is still waiting to find a home. But the basic point for this discussion is that we both thought it was really journalistically important to understand who it was who was resisting the presence of the foreign troops. If you didn't understand that, how could you report what was clearly becoming an "ongoing conflict?" And if you were reading the news in America, or Europe, how could you understand the full context of what was unfolding if what motivates the "other side" of the conflict is not understood, or even discussed?

Just the process of working on that story has revealed many things to me about my own country. I'd like to share some of them with you:

Lesson One: Many journalists in Iraq could not, or would not, check their nationality or their own perspective at the door.

One of the hardest things about working on this story for me personally, and as a journalist, was to set my "American self" and perspective aside. It was an ongoing challenge to listen open-mindedly to a group of people whose foundation of belief is significantly different from mine, and one I found I often strongly disagreed with.

But going in to report a story with a pile of prejudices is no way to do a story justice, or to do it fairly, and that constant necessity to bite my tongue, wipe the smirk off my face or continue to listen through a racial or religious diatribe that I found appalling was a skill I had to practice. We would never walk in to cover a union problem or political event without seeking to understand the perspective from both, or the many sides of the story that exist. Why should we as journalists do it in Iraq?

Lesson Two: Our behavior as journalists has taught us very little. Just as in the lead up to the war in Iraq, questioning our government's decisions and claims and what it seeks to achieve is criticized as unpatriotic.

Along these lines, the other thing I found difficult was the realization that, while I was out doing what I believe is solid journalism, there were many (journalists and normal folks alike) who would question my patriotism, or wonder how I could even think hearing and relating the perspective "from the other side" was important.

Certainly, over the last three years I've had to acquire the discipline of overriding my emotional attachment to my country, and remember my sense of human values that transcend frontiers and ethnicity. And with a sense of duty to history, I needed to just get on with reporting the story. My value of human life and rights don't fluctuate depending on which country I'm in. I don't see one individual as more deserving of fair treatment than another. . . .

Now, I realize I'm in Kentucky, a state with many military connections, and there are many of you here who may have served, or have family members who serve, and let me take this moment to say that I have the utmost respect and sympathy for the American soldiers overseas right now, particularly in Iraq. They have been sent on a most difficult mission, to quell a population that will not be quelled, in a land awash with weapons. The American military is being used to find a solution to what is essentially a political problem, an equation that rarely adds up well. As if that were not enough, our soldiers have been sent with insufficient resources to protect themselves. In my mind, that is all inexcusable.

Lesson Three: To seek to understand and represent to an American audience the reasons behind the Iraqi opposition is practically treasonous.

Every one of the people involved in the resistance that we spoke to held us individually responsible for their security. If something happened to them -- never mind that they were legitimate targets for the U.S. military -- they would blame us. And kill us. We soon learned that they had the U.S. bases so well watched that we had to abandon our idea of working on the U.S. side of the story -- that is, discovering what the soldiers really thought about who might be attacking them. There were so many journalists working with the American soldiers that we believed that that story would be well told. More practically, if we were seen by the Iraqis going in and out of the American bases, we would be tagged immediately as spies, informants and most likely be killed.

As terrifying as that was to manage and work through, there was another fear that was just as bad. What if the American military or intelligence found out what we were working on? Would they tail us and round up the people we met? Would they kick down our door late one night, rifle through all our stuff and arrest us for "collaborating with the enemy?" Bear in mind that there are no real laws in Iraq. At the time that we were working, the American military was the law, and it seemed to me that they were pretty much making it up as they went along. I was pretty sure that if they wanted to "disappear" us, rough us up or even send us for an all expenses paid vacation in Guantánamo for suspected al-Qaida connections, they could do so with very little, or even no recourse on our part.

I could go into a long litany of the ways in which the American military has treated journalists in Iraq. Recent actions indicate that the U.S. military will detain and/or kill any journalist who happens to be caught covering the Iraqi side of the militant resistance, and indeed a number of journalists have been killed by U.S. troops while working in Iraq. This behavior at the moment seems to be limited to journalists who also happen to be Arabs, or Arab-looking, but that is only a tangential story to what I'm telling you about here.

The intimidation to not work on this story was evident. Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander just before we left. Dexter and the commander had gotten quite friendly, meeting up sporadically for a beer and a chat. Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment. And, again, this is not meant as any criticism of the military; they have a war to win, and dominating the "message," or the news is an integral part of that war. The military has a name for it, "information operations," and the aim is to achieve information superiority in the same way they would seek to achieve air superiority. If you look closely, you will notice there is very little, maybe even no direct reporting on the resistance in Iraq. We do, however, as journalists report what the Americans say about the resistance. Is this really anything more than stenography?

And many American journalists often refer to those attacking Americans or Iraqi troops and policemen as "terrorists." Some are indeed using terrorist tactics, but calling them "terrorists" simply shuts down any sense of need or interest to look beyond that word, to understand why indeed human beings might be willing to die in a violent struggle to achieve their goal. Pushing them off as simply "insane, wild Arabs" or "extremist Muslims" does them no service, but even more, it does the U.S. no service. If we as Americans fail to understand who attacks us and why, we will simply continue on this same path, and continue watching from afar as a war we don't understand boils over.

Lesson Four: The gatekeepers -- by which I mean the editors, publishers and business sides of the media -- don't want their paper or their outlet to reveal that compelling narrative of why anyone would oppose the presence of American troops on their soil. Why would anyone refuse democracy? Why would anyone not want the helping hand of America in overthrowing their terrible dictator? It's amazing to me how expeditiously we turn away from our own history. Think of our revolution. Think of our Founding Fathers. Think of what they stood for and hoped for. Think of how, over time, we have learned to improve on our own Constitution and governance. But think, mostly, about the words I just used: It was our decision and our determination that brought us where we are now.

Recall Patrick Henry's famous speech encouraging the Second Virginia Convention, gathered on March 20, 1775, to fight the British, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Why is it that we, as Americans, presume that any Iraqi would feel any differently? If the roles were reversed, do you think for a moment that our men wouldn't be stockpiling arms and attacking any foreign invader with the temerity to set foot on our soil, occupy our buildings of government and write us a new constitution?

Wouldn't we as women be joining with them in any way we could? Wouldn't the divisions between us -- how we feel about President Bush, whether we're Republican or Democrat -- be put aside as we resisted a common enemy?

Then why is it that this story of human effort for self-determination by violent means cannot be told in America? Are we so small, so confused by our own values that we cannot recognize when someone emulates our own struggle? Even if it is the U.S. that they are struggling against? I want to be careful to explain that I am not saying that the Iraqis fighting against us are necessarily fighting for democracy, but they are fighting for their right to decide for themselves what their nation looks like politically.

Lesson Five: What it's like to be afraid of your own country.

Once the story was finished and set to come out on the street, I was rushing back to the States -- mostly because we could no longer work once the story was published -- and I found I was scared returning to my own country. And that was an amazingly strange and awful feeling to have. Again, you could call me paranoid, but the questions about what might happen to me once in America -- where at least I would have more rights -- kept racing through my brain. I'm still here, so you could say that my frantic mental gymnastics about what could happen to me in my own country were paranoid anxieties.

But I would turn that question around:

How many other American journalists, perhaps not as secure in their position as I, have thought to do a story and decided that it's too close to the bone, too questioning of the American government or its actions? How many times was the risk that our own government might come in and rifle through our apartment, our homes or take us away for questioning in front of our children a factor in our decision not to do a story? How many times did we as journalists decide not to do a story because we thought it might get us into trouble? Or, as likely, how often did the editor above us kill the story for the same reasons? Lots of column inches have been spent in the discussion of how our rights as Americans are being surreptitiously confiscated, but what about our complicity, as journalists, in that? It seems to me that the assault on free speech, while the fear and intimidation is in the air, comes as much from us -- as individuals and networks of journalists who censor ourselves -- as it does from any other source.

We need to wake up as individuals and as a community of journalists and start asking the hard and scary questions. Questions we may not really want to know the answers to about ourselves, about our government, about what is being done in our name, and hold the responsible individuals accountable through due process in our legal or electoral system.

We need to begin to be able to look again at our government, our leadership and ourselves critically. That is what the Fourth Estate is all about. That's what American journalism can do at its zenith. I also happen to believe that, in fact, that is the highest form of patriotism -- expecting our country to live up to the promises it makes and the values it purports to hold. The role of the media in assisting the public to ensure those values are reflected in reality is undeniably failing today.

Go ahead, take a hard look in the mirror, ask the questions -- if there is something in our nation that needs repair or change, that is how it will get done, by asking those questions, getting answers and reporting them.

We still have the freedom in this country as individuals and as journalists to defend the rights enshrined in the Constitution, to defend the values that we as individuals still hold dear -- so why aren't we doing it? Are we scared? If we're scared, then who will be there to defend those rights and values when it is proposed that they be taken away?

I still believe in that country that I love so dearly, the place I think of when the words "freedom," "opportunity," "liberty," "justice" and "equality" are spoken on lips, but I want it to be a country I see, hear and feel every day, not one that lives in my imagination.

It's time we looked in the mirror and began to take responsibility for what our country looks like, what our country is and how it behaves, rather than acting like victims before we actually are.

Or do I need to start facing the reality that all I love and believe in is simply self-delusion?

This article is adapted from a speech given by photojournalist Molly Bingham at Western Kentucky University last month. Bingham, a Louisville native, was detained in 2003 by Iraqi security forces and held in Abu Ghraib prison from March 25 to April 2, 2003. Eighteen days after her release, she returned to Iraq to pursue stories for The New York Times, The Guardian of London and others. Taking a short break during the summer of 2003, Bingham had the idea of working on a story to explore who was involved in the nascent resistance that was becoming apparent throughout Iraq. She scanned the papers that summer, looking for an article that would show some journalist had reported the story, had gone deeper to find out the source of the new violence. No one had. So in August 2003, Bingham returned with British journalist Steve Connors and spent the next 10 months reporting the story of the Iraqi resistance. Her account was published in Vanity Fair magazine in July 2004; Connors shot a documentary film on the subject. This speech was a challenge to journalists, and Americans, to speak up and be sure their comments, questions and thoughts are heard, and that the First Amendment is celebrated in all its strengths. Bingham began her career as a photo intern for The Courier-Journal and Louisville Times.

---

Editor's comment: Happy Memorial Day everyone.

As we remember those who have sacrificed for their country, let us also remember that the surest way to cause those sacrifices to be in vain is to not hold the press to its responsibility to report truthfully, completely and accurately on matters of utmost concern.

When journalists fail in their responsibility, they become killers. This is the fallacy of an independent press. We have, rather, a controlled and subservient media full of the same lies as our traitorous leaders.

And as is said in Scripture, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6

Intelligence Sources Say Bilderberg Targeting American Patriots

May 28, 2005
Prison Planet

Daniel Estulin is award-winning investigative journalist who has been researching the Bilderbergers for over 13 years. Estulin was one of only two journalists in the world who witnessed and reported (from beyond the heavily guarded perimeter) the super secret meeting at the Dorint Sofitel Seehotel in Rottach-Egern, Munich, Bavaria, Germany, on May 5–8, 2005.

Estulin appeared on the Alex Jones Show to discuss Bilderberg's agenda for the coming year and their discussions on Iran and population control.

The attack on Iran seems to have been delayed but the goal of population reduction is back on the table for the Globalists, according to insiders who leaked information to Estulin.

Estulin has built up a reliable network of CIA, MI5 and Mossad insiders who are just as horrified as the rest of us about what the elite have in store for us.

Each year they are able to leak him information discussed both in the Bilderberg conference rooms and more informal chats during coffee and cocktail breaks.

This year Estulin dropped a bombshell that shocked even us.

According to Estulin's sources, Bilderberg are very angry at the alternative truth movement and its opposition and exposure of Bilderberg's agenda. More specifically, the Christian Patriot movement in America was highlighted as a nuisance that will have to be dealt with.

Bilderberg members postulated the necessity of wiping out American patriots who oppose the New World Order.

Some Bilderberg members expressed a wish to essentially invade the US with UN peacekeeping troops and confront Patriots. Bilderberg can't use the US military to carry out their dirty work because they are worried it would backfire as US troops would refuse to fire on their own citizens.

Many in the Christian Patriot movement have been saying that this would take place for a long time and have been ridiculed for doing so. However, this information lends credibility to an age-old warning handed down the generations, that one day the blue helmeted forces of world government would engage patriotic Americans sworn on defending their country.

The fact that we are causing Bilderberg so much annoyance in the first place should bring joy to us all! It only emphasises the fact that we are having a significant effect and should only redouble our efforts.

Estulin added that the security crackdown for Bilderberg this year was worse than ever. He almost didn't make it into the country after police and Interpol agents boarded his plane and lead him away for questioning. Estulin was able to shake them off by enlisting the help of his media contacts, who pressured the German government into letting him enter the country.

Read Daniel Estulin's great article.
The world in the palm of their hands: Bilderberg 2005

Alex Jones interview (MP3 audio) with Daniel Estulin

Alex Jones interviews Jim Tucker of American Free Press.

---

Editor's comment: According to Daniel Estulin, the Bilderbergers want to eliminate 3 billion of the population of the world in the very near future, and this will include 100 million Americans.

We urge you to listen to the Alex Jones interview with Daniel Estulin where you will hear that Peak Oil is a scam and contrived to drive the price of oil up to $120-$150 a barrel in the next two years.

Listen to the interview and hear for yourself the monstrous plans of the plutocrats to crash the world economy and much more.

This is a blockbuster!

The globalists are scared and their program is crumbling. They are preparing to rachet up the pressure and create a U.N. tax and even to invade the U.S. with U.N. troops. This is one of the primary reasons that U.S. troops have been sent out of the country, so they may not be able to defend our soil, our heritage and our freedom.

TROOPS ON BORDER?

REPORT: U.S. Could Stymie Flow of Aliens

Minuteman Project Showed How Effective Eyes Can Be

By Fred Lingel
May 28, 2005
American Free Press

Momentum for serious border control is growing as a congressional report recommends deploying the National Guard and another shows how to reduce the number of illegal aliens already here to virtually zero. The report by the staff of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus stated the obvious: As demonstrated by the Minutemen, it said, troops stationed on the border will virtually eliminate illegal entry.

The deployment of 36,000 National Guard or state militia troops could “dramatically reduce if not virtually eliminate” illegal border crossings, the report said. It said the Minutemen, who shut down a 23-mile stretch of the Arizona border in April, served as a model for a government effort to reclaim the southern border of the United States.

“The tide of illegal crossings on the borders of the United States is beyond unsatisfactory; it is catastrophic,” the report said. “It does not ebb and flow — it only grows. It is rising without measure and eroding the very fiber of our safety, life and culture.

“As we wage the war on terror in foreign lands, we have all our doors and windows open at home. . . . The insanity of such a policy, or silent toleration of such a policy is almost criminal in itself,” it said. “The Minuteman Project demonstrated that illegal immigration on America’s southern border can be dramatically reduced to manageable levels,” said the report, released May 24.

The Border Patrol failed “through no fault of its rank-and-file enforcement officers” to protect the United States from the flood of illegal aliens, the report said.

The agency’s uniformed leadership should be pointed in a “new direction” because it is in “total denial of the magnitude of the disaster” and—as currently organized, staffed and supported — “cannot be relied upon” to remedy the situation soon.

“The Border Patrol needs new direction from the Department of Homeland Security if it is to shake off the lethargy from years of undermanned frustration,” the report said. “The patrol needs to empower its outstanding field officers to act as necessary to accomplish the patrol’s mission . . . to energize its leadership to think outside the box.”

Congress and the states should sustain the success of the Minuteman Project — whose members were lightly armed, had no arrest powers, were not paid and traveled to Arizona at their own expense — with the deployment of National Guard or state militia troops in coordination with the Border Patrol, the report said. Sufficient reinforcements exist in current National Guard units and could be put on the border by governors and the secretary of defense within a month, if the political will exists, it said.

On the same day the congressional report was issued, the Center for Immigration Studies issued a report on how to reduce the current level of illegal aliens to virtually zero. Said Mark Krikorian, the center’s executive director:

“By deterring the settlement of new illegals, by increasing deportations to the extent possible, and, most importantly, by increasing the number of illegals already here who give up and deport themselves, the United States can bring about an annual decrease in the illegal-alien population, rather than allowing it to continually increase.”

The result, he said, would be a shrinking of the illegal population to a “manageable nuisance.”

The decrease would come in large part by sealing off the border to new illegal aliens, he said.

“From 1995 to 1999, an average of 165,000 a year went back home on their own after residing here for at least a year; the same number got some kind of legal status, about 50,000 were deported and 25,000 died, for a total of more than 400,000 people each year subtracted from the resident illegal population,” he said.

But “the average annual inflow of new illegal aliens over that same period was nearly 800,000, swamping the outflow and creating an average annual increase of close to 400, 000,” he said. He called for “a strategy of attrition.”

---

Editor's comment: After California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger angered Hispanics by calling on the federal government to increase patrols along the border with Mexico, it seems as if Congress is taking the hint as this new Congressional report shows.

To make matters worse, a Mexican unit, Grupo Beta, formed to counter the Minuteman activity in Arizona, protects and assists migrants and transports them to safety so they may make plans to cross the border elsewhere.

This is clearly a further provocation of the tensions along the border. And in conjunction with continual incidents of U.S. Border Patrol Officers being fired upon from across the border by unknown assailants, possibly drug smugglers, the situation continues to deteriorate.

What is substantially good news is the report from the Center for Immigration Studies that says illegal immigration can be reduced "to virtually zero."

Of course, they are telling us something we have been aware of for many years, and have been in the chorus of "voices in the wilderness" calling for deployment of troops to stop the flow of illegals.

Hopefully, this is a wake up call for Congress to take measures to stop this heinous invasion of our nation. By doing so, it is a first step to taking back lost sovereignty and reversing the effects of NAFTA and stopping the onrushing New World Order with its incessant destruction of our white, Christian European culture and heritage.

We can only hope that the gutless and subservient occupant of the Oval Office would receive a similar wake up call. If not, impeachment proceedings would be very sweet indeed.

Illegals Caught in Phony ID Scam

By Mike Blair
May 28, 2005
American Free Press

A new scam using stolen identity has been hatched by illegal Mexican aliens and is bilking Americans of tens of million of dollars through their banks. Its leadership, may be located in Mexico and could have links with Mexican government officials. The scam is being operated from California and has cells in several states.

A source told American Free Press that the illegal aliens could also be associated with Mexican drug cartels.

The organization has cells in at least seven states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington — and is estimated to have bilked banks out of at least $50 million.

The gangs target smaller banks, which have less sophisticated means to identify fake identity cards, which the illegals are making with camera cell phones.

GREEN CARD
Federal officials have shut down one cell in Virginia and have indicted nine illegal aliens from Mexico and two other Mexicans who either had “green card” immigrant status or were possibly in America on work visas.

Dubbed “Operation Snapshot,” an investigation by federal officials in western Virginia has resulted in the indictment in Roanoke of 11 Mexicans. Ten of the Mexicans are in custody. The leader of the cell, Julian Tovar Pina, currently in custody, is a 30-year-old Mexican illegal. His brother, Anthony Tovar Pina, remains at large.

The Mexicans indicted in Roanoke initiated their scam by allegedly stealing payroll checks from Scott-Gallagher Inc., a construction company in Botetourt County in western Virginia.

Numerous construction companies employ Mexican laborers without much attention given to their status. One firm in central Virginia involved in highway construction employs only Mexican laborers.

The gang produced fake photo IDs for the persons to whom the checks were intended in amounts ranging from $900 to $1,000 and went to several branches of the Bank of Botetourt in Roanoke and Botetourt County on March 4, where the checks were then cashed.

The gang members, who had bilked the Virginia banks out of more than $40,000, approached the financial institutions again on March 7, but 10 of the 11 were arrested by Botetourt County sheriff’s deputies.

About 30 percent of criminals incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons are illegals. Mexican drug cartels have become a major source of crime and illegal drugs in the United States.

A total of 1.7 million cases of identity theft were reported in the United States last year.

---

Editor's comment: This shows the extent to which illegal immigration is working against the stability of the United States. Although we are opposed to the present banking and monetary system, we cannot help but condemn this blatantly criminal activity which is a systemic problem of the fraudulent nature of the Federal Reserve System.

These criminal gangs come in and set up their operations mixed in among the others who would be honest migrant workers and others looking for a better life. This is still no excuse for the uncontrolled illegal invasion that our traitorous leaders and government officials have allowed to flourish.

The problems associated with the porous borders have been covered elsewhere in detail and we shall not do double duty here.

However, it is with due diligence that these criminal acts be brought into the spotlight so that pressure may be brought to bear on the corrupt Congress and an irresponsible President to shut off the flow and seal the borders with American troops rather than send them around the world pursuing the imperial adventures of the neocons and the plutocractic elite.

The issue is, and always has been, America for Americans, first, foremost and always.

To subscribe to American Free Press, call 1-888-699-6397. And please use my Distributor I.D. #29824. Your support helps to cover expenses and is greatly appreciated.

French in disarray as they admit EU treaty vote is lost

Britain will ditch referendum if French vote 'Non'

By Charles Bremner in Paris
and Philip Webster, Political Editor
May 26,2005
TimesOnline

THE leader of France’s ruling party has privately admitted that Sunday’s referendum on the European constitution will result in a “no” vote, throwing Europe into turmoil.

“The thing is lost,” Nicolas Sarkozy told French ministers during an ill-tempered meeting. “It will be a little ‘no’ or a big ‘no’,” he was quoted as telling Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the Prime Minister, whom he accused of leading a feeble campaign.

Although Europe would be thrown into disarray, the Government would be greatly relieved if M Sarkozy were right.

Ministers have privately told The Times that Britain is prepared to ditch its commitment to a referendum if France, or the Netherlands next Wednesday, vote against the constitution. They believe that if the French say “no”, President Chirac will have to declare the constitution dead or promise a renegotiation.

Because French voters consider that the treaty has already given too many concessions to Britain, ministers see no likelihood of the Government being able to put a renegotiated treaty to the country.

Tony Blair would instead have to use Britain’s imminent EU presidency to try to save those parts of the constitution that can be enforced without a treaty. That could mean that mechanical changes, such as ending the six-month rotating presidency of the EU, could go through.

The mood of pessimism that descended on the French Government after ten successive polls showing the “no” camp leading was echoed by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French President, who drafted the constitution. He blamed the failures of the “yes” campaign on the half-heartedness of France’s leaders.

“Our current leaders are of course believers in the idea of Europe but in their heart of hearts they are not men and women who are inspired by a European feeling,” he told a French newspaper.

President Chirac will go on television tonight to deliver a last-ditch appeal to his country to resist the temptation to vote “no” and trigger a crisis for the whole European Union.

But the President, who called the referendum in July last year but has done little campaigning, was reported to be pessimistic and telling visitors to the Elysée Palace that he expected a “no”.

M Sarkozy’s outburst came after M Raffarin, who is expected to lose his job in the event of a defeat, told ministers and the leadership of M Chirac’s UMP party that they should avoid defeatism but be prepared to limit the damage from the crisis from a “no”, party sources said.

After Philippe Douste-Blazy, the Health Minister, insisted that “we should trust the head of state”, M Sarkozy retorted: “Everything has to change — our way of doing politics . . . the labour law.” He said that the UMP would demand changes after the referendum and that “the Government had better follow the party”, the sources said.

M Sarkozy wants to be President and is locked in a bitter rivalry with M Chirac. The leaking of the row by M Sarkozy’s camp was a sign of the rising bad blood between the party leader and M Chirac’s team.

Mr Blair, pressed in the Commons to make plain that Britain would not go ahead if there were a rejection of the treaty in France’s vote on Sunday or the Dutch poll next Wednesday, effectively did so.

He said yesterday only that there would be a referendum before any constitutional treaty was ratified in Britain. He carefully avoided saying that there would be a referendum come what may.

He said: “If any country did vote ‘no’ there would have to be a discussion at the European Council on it to see the way forward and there is really nothing else to say at this point.”

---

Editor's comment: The squeeze is on the French politicians as the French voters and economy feel the pinch of "outsourcing" of jobs to Ukraine and other former Eastern Bloc countries. This, along with cheap imports from China and other low wage countries has wrecked the French economy much as NAFTA and other free trade deals have wrecked the economy here in the U.S.

Polls show that there is still a large number of undecided voters with the 'No' vote gaining ground

The people need jobs and the only way to keep them is to remove the free trade deals and force the corporations to keep their manufacturing facilities in place.

Another factor is the uncontrolled immigration that steals jobs from those native born people for the benefit of providing cheap imported labor for the large corporate operations who still have domestic production facilities.

Dutch 'No' Vote Looming Large

In other EU constitution developments in the Netherlands, Henk Ruyssenaars reports that the corrupt Dutch judiciary has blocked a complaint by the No Constitution Committee of the Netherlands which challenged the Dutch government's "allocation of €3.5 million to the 'yes' campaign for the 1 June referendum" as unlawful.

Also, a poll conducted by the Dutch NSS-Interview Institute on Friday, May 20th showed a resounding defeat looming for the EU constitution referendum with 63 per cent of respondents opposed to the treaty, and 37 per cent in favor.

Another poll conducted the next day by the Maurice de Hond Institute showed 60% opposed and 40% in favor.

In a London Telegraph story, we find this interesting bit of information.

Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, appealed to French and Dutch voters yesterday to shun the appeals from the increasingly confident No campaigners.

"Of course it [the constitution] is not perfect," he wrote in the French newspaper Le Figaro. "But it is an undeniable step towards the European ideal. A step forward, towards the Europe we want, the citizens' Europe."

Speaking to reporters in The Hague, he refused to speculate about the chance of a No vote.

"I have experienced so often as prime minister that polls are different than the final outcome. Next week is the real moment," he said. "Everybody's vote counts. The question is whether we go ahead with Europe or stand still."

Ruyssenaars further reports that in Britain, "There is a now fast growing public skepticism about some important parts of the new European constitution. ...where the 'pro Bush' Blair government plays the role of '5th colone' - the 'worst traitor' in the EU, Bush's warmongering poodle Blair, speaks with a misleading loud voice about democracy, etc."

All in all, this report is good news for European Nationalists and a bitter pill to swallow for the European globalist cabal.

As Alex Jones says, "We are on the march, the Empire is on the run."

Lookout, France! Google hires neo-con headbanger

By Andrew Orlowski
24th May 2005
The Register, UK

The company that prides itself on "Doing No Evil" isn't taking any chances with its latest executive appointment. Dan Senor, the company's new Global Communications and Strategy VP, has a CV guaranteed to have Register columnist Otto Z Stern firing a celebratory fusillade skywards from his compound in New Mexico.

A former Senior Associate at the Carlyle Group, Senor was briefly Scott McLellan's deputy as White House spokesman before becoming head of the the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq's information department. The White House web site bills him as Senior Advisor to Presidential Envoy L. Paul Bremer III. Fox News hired Senor as a panelist in February. While in Iraq Senor showed his loyalty by going jogging in a Bush-Cheney '04 tracksuit.

Not everyone is impressed.

"I have come to associate his triangular, brush-cut head with an unceasing stream of bullshit. He's Ari Fleischer without the charm," writes one grump. "Hiring this guy is a repulsive move."

An impressive resume, for sure, but one perhaps more useful to a company building a military task force than a search engine. And it'll be fascinating to see the reaction of the French, with whom Google is locked into some extremely sensitive negotiations, to Senor's brand of special diplomacy.

---

Editor's comment: We find the following additional information on Dan Senor at Disinfopeia's Source Watch by the Center for Media and Democracy.

The following elements of Senor's CV are not present in the version on the White House website:

In 1993 Senor did an internship [1] at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobby organization which some regard as being affiliated to the Likud party. AIPAC's website quotes him as saying: "Whether I was learning the ins and outs of Washington with my fellow interns or attending briefings on Capitol Hill, my internship at AIPAC prepared me for my work in politics". His sister, Wendy Senor Singer, heads AIPAC's office in Jerusalem. His brother-in-law, Saul Singer, is the very right-wing opinion editor of the Jerusalem Post.

Senor is listed as a director on the website of USIBEX, the US-Israel Business Exchange. It describes him as a Senior Associate of the Carlyle Group. It is not clear from the website if this information is still current.

Senor worked for the Carlyle Group as a venture capitalist from 2001 to 2003. [2] The Carlyle Group is a venture capital company specializing in defence and industry which has strong ties to the Bush family.

Before going to Baghdad, Senor was briefly deputy to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. [3]

There is only one reason for a thug like Senor to be inserted into Google as Global Communications and Strategy VP. And that reason is to hobble the internet as a source of information.

This is even more frightening considering Google's recent acquisition of Blogger and Picasa.

Blogs scare the living daylights out of the fascists at corporate and government offices alike. So we must be aware that attempts to muzzle bloggers are not limited to governments. There is virtually no way for them to control the flow of information presently.

And, it is giving fits to the likes of Dan Senor and the spinmeisters at communication central under the auspices of Karl Rove and Scott McClellan at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where we have seen that so-called journalists are paid to shill for the policy wonks of governmental agencies.

It is not so strange, then, that this sort of shilling is making an appearance in the commercial realm at USWeb.com.

It is now time for Google to begin it's descent from the #1 position and for all good Americans and other Nationalists around the world to turn to alternate search engines.

Here are a few recommendations from friends.

1. DevilFinder, has a look and feel similar to Google.

2. AltaVista, good for MP3 and images.

3. GigaBlast, give it a try.

4. Yahoo, a good old standby for news, etc.

There are bound to be more and maybe even a new offering coming soon from rumblings I have heard among web junkies who have their ear to the rail.

THE PROVOCATEUR STATE

Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi "Insurgents" - and Global Terrorism?

By Frank Morales
May 10, 2005
WW4report.com

The requirement of an ever-escalating level of social violence to meet the political and economic needs of the insatiable "anti-terrorist complex" is the essence of the new US militarism. What is now openly billed as "permanent war" ultimately serves the geo-political ends of social control in the interests of US corporate domination, much as the anti-communist crusade of the now-exhausted Cold War did.

Back in 2002, following the trauma of 9-11, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld predicted there would be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. How could he be so sure of that? Perhaps because these attacks would be instigated on the order of the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld. According to Los Angeles Times military analyst William Arkin, writing Oct. 27, 2002, Rumsfeld set out to create a secret army, "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" network that would "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception," to stir the pot of spiraling global violence.

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--would actually carry out secret missions designed to provoke terrorist groups into committing violent acts. The P2OG, a 100-member, so-called "counter-terrorist" organization with a $100-million-a-year budget, would ostensibly target "terrorist leaders," but according to P2OG documents procured by Arkin, would in fact carry out missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among "terrorist groups"--which, according to the Defense Secretary's logic, would subsequently expose them to "counter-attack" by the good guys. In other words, the plan is to execute secret military operations (assassinations, sabotage, "deception") which would intentionally result in terrorist attacks on innocent people, including Americans--essentially, to "combat terrorism" by causing it!

This notion is currently being applied to the problem of the Iraqi "insurgency," it seems. According to a May 1, 2005 report by Peter Maass in the New York Times Magazine, two of the top US advisers to Iraqi paramilitary commandos fighting the insurgents are veterans of US counterinsurgency operations in Latin America. Loaning credence to recent media speculation about the "Salvadorization" of Iraq, the report notes that one adviser currently in Iraq is James Steele, who led a team of 55 US Army Special Forces advisers in El Salvador in the 1980s. Maass writes that these advisors "trained front-line battalions that were accused of significant human rights abuses."

The current senior US adviser at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which Maass writes "has operational control over the commandos," is former top US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) official Steve Casteel, who worked "alongside local forces" in the US-sponsored "Drug War" in Bolivia, Peru and Colombia, "where he was involved in the hunt for Pablo Escobar, the head of the Medellin cocaine cartel."

The US "drug war" in Latin America also serves as a cover for ongoing counterinsurgency, employing terrorist methods to achieve two aims: one, actually combating genuine insurgency; two, the ratcheting up of a "strategy of tension," heightened social violence designed to induce fear among the citizenry and the subsequent call for greater "security."

This was the essence, for example, of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of provocateur-style terrorism and deceit. The ostensible purpose of Gladio, officially launched as a covert NATO program in 1952, was to establish a clandestine network of "stay-behind" teams which would organize armed resistance and sabotage in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. But the network actually took a far more proactive role. Directed by US/NATO intelligence services of the West against their own populations, Operation Gladio led to possibly hundreds of innocent people being killed or maimed in "terrorist" attacks which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The most notorious such attack was the 1980 bombing of the train station at Bologna, which left 85 dead. Initially blamed on left-wing radicals, the blast was revealed upon investigation to be the work of an ultra-right network linked to the Italy's Gladio team; four Italian neo-fascists were eventually convicted of the crime.

The purpose was again twofold: to demonize designated enemies (the "communists") and to frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for the national security state. It appears the Pentagon has been implementing Gladio-style operations for quite some time--possibly including 9-11. A stretch? Maybe not.

Witness the US Joint Chiefs discussion of "Operation Northwoods" back in 1962, a plan to blow up U.S. "assets"--including U.S. citizens--in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. Later, US Army Field Manual 30-31B, entitled "Stability Operations Intelligence - Special Fields," dated March 18, 1970 and signed by Gen. William C Westmoreland, promoted terrorist attacks (and the planting of false evidence) in public places which were then to be blamed on "communists" and "socialists." It called for the execution of terrorist attacks throughout Western Europe, carried out through a network of covert US/NATO armies, in order to convince European governments of "the communist threat."

What's striking is that during this period the primary source for US government info on the Russian "threat" was coming from the Gehlen Organization, Hitler’s eastern front intelligence apparatus, which in the aftermath of World War II had cut a deal with the CIA's Allen Dulles and worked out of Fort Hunt, just outside Washington DC, before being relocated back to Munich. Headed up by super-spy Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, the Org's "special operations" expertise was heeded, financed and well-protected by U.S. tax dollars well into the 1970's. Could the Gehlen Org have had an influence in the production of FM 30-31B?

According to FM 30-31B, "there may be times when Host Country Governments show passivity or indecision in the face of communist subversion and according to the interpretation of the US secret services do not react with sufficient effectiveness. Most often such situations come about when the revolutionaries temporarily renounce the use of force and thus hope to gain an advantage, as the leaders of the host country wrongly consider the situation to be secure. US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger."

The U.S. Army now claims the document was a Russian forgery. Journalist Allan Francovich in his BBC documentation on Gladio and US/NATO "special operations" terrorism, asked Ray Cline, CIA deputy director from 1962 to 1966, if he believed FM 30-31B was for real and he replied: "Well, I suspect it is an authentic document. I don't doubt it. I never saw it but it's the kind of special forces military operations that are described," to be implemented at the discretion of the president and Defense Department on the "appropriate occasion."

It could be that in Iraq--and elsewhere around the world--the "appropriate occasion" has arrived. Bush's war on terrorism could be the ultimate manifestation of the provocateur state; carrying out of clandestine "executive actions" and "special operations" directed against populations, including our own, who are truly ignorant of the real "enemy" in the face of the ever-present manufactured one, traumatized by strategic terror designed to engender fear and acquiescence to further "security measures"--thereby enriching the military, police agencies, and munitions and nuclear business enterprises.

RESOURCES:

[1] Peter Maass, "The Salvadorization of Iraq?," New York Times Magazine, May
1, 2005.

[2] A.K. Gupta, "Unraveling Iraq's Secret Militias," Z Magazine, May 2005

[3] Lila Rajiva, "The Pentagon's 'NATO Option'," CommonDreams, Feb. 10, 2005.

[4] Statewatch Briefing on Operation Gladio

[5] US Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Operation Northwoods", 1962

[6] National Security Archives on Operation Northwoods

[7] US Army, Field Manual 30-31B, 1970

[8] FM 30-31B excerpts from Cryptome.org

[9] WW4 REPORT #58 on P2OG

[10] Frank Morales, "John Negroponte and the Death Squad Connection," WW4 REPORT #108

---

Editor's comment: Frank Morales brings together a good historical background of the modern provocateur state.

It is a known fact, considering the exposure of Operation Northwoods, that the tendency of the state apparatus to provoke incidents that would cause a sympathetic reaction by the public which would be beneficial to the military-industrial complex and the bureaucracy in general, cannot be denied. The events of 9-11-2001 are a most glaring example of how this works.

A good article that we have posted here previously, which exposes a remarkable similarity to Operation Gladio in concept, shows how the modern provocateurs operate in undermining the governments of nations which the current power structure sees in an adversarial light.

Reading the aforementioned article will show that this new "peaceful revolution" style of mobilizing disaffected youth against the ruling classes (as was done in Serbia and Ukraine just to mention two) with the infusion of massive amounts of money through the use of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the use of new technology of cell phones and internet communication is at the heart of the effort to overthrow governments which stand in opposition to the New World Order of transnational corporatism and fascist governmental cooperation by funding the NGOs as fronts for "democratization."

In the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the situation in South America surrounding Colombia, Bolivia and Peru, the efforts have caused the death or displacement of hundreds of thousands of people in an effort to upset the base of support for the resistance movements in those countries. This is also affecting Venezuela which has already suffered a failed coup against President Hugo Chavez.

The violent methods being employed in these areas are the direct result of policies which are genocidal in nature and intended to promote corporate hegemony over the natural resources and lines of communication and transportation to get those resources to market.

Nothing will change until the people band together to stop the corrupt megalomaniacs who now run the transnational monopolies and administer those same corrupt policies within government circles.

These monopolies were broken up once over 100 years ago in the last populist revolution in the U.S. It can be done again, and it must be done.

Riding on the bus this week coming back from New Orleans, we overheard a conversation among a few black men in which they voiced their concerns over the very same things that we have written about here on these pages, and which is again mentioned here.

Though having vociferous complaint about the squeeze in the ability to make ends meet and get good jobs, the sense was that there was no idea among these black men how to fix the problem which is causing their dilemma.

It is the abuse of the corporate power structure and its governmental symbiant who have allowed the corporations to escape regulation as was intended and should be under the rule of law. Unless and until the white majority awakens and takes control of the reigns of government, we can not expect anything to change since it is a fundamental fact that a return to the ideals of the founders as outlined in The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles (Hamilton Abert Long, 1976), which twelve principles comprise the basic American philosophy of liberty, is the foundation that is necessary to bring morality and prosperity again to our people and our nation.

Corporations are to be strictly regulated by governmental oversight. As fictions of law, they are to be servants of the people since they exist at the pleasure, and by permission, of the government. In turn, the government, as the servants of the people, has a duty and obligation to conduct their oversight with integrity and forthrightness. This has not been the case, and it needs to be corrected.

We will at a point in the near future offer some potential remedies to the abuse of corporatism which we hope will break up these monopolies and the aggregation of money and power that is associated with these monopolies.

It is a proven fact of human nature in matters of governmental concern, that if the people are corrupt, so, too, will their leaders be corrupt; the public sector is a reflection of the private sector, and if the leaders are corrupt, it mirrors a corruption among the people. Nothing will change until the people turn back to God and His Law. When the people return to morality and justice, then our leaders will be forced to return there as well.

BILDERBERG EXPOSED

World Shadow Government Uncovered by AFP Again

By James P. Tucker Jr.
May 17, 2005
American Free Press

BANKING ON IT: Above, incoming World Bank director Paul Wolfowitz (right) talks with Etienne Davignon, the powerful globalist banker who was behind getting Europe to accept the euro.

What kind of a world does the elite plan for you? Since 1954, the Bilderberg group, with the collaboration of the mainstream media, has been meeting in secret, behind closed and heavily guarded doors, to make decisions affecting virtually everyone on Earth.

This year, Bilderberg was exposed at a posh resort in a tiny village 40 miles from Munich. Bilderberg has roughly 120 participants, including international financiers, heads of state and other high officials from Europe and North America. U.S. luminaries include David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.

All recent presidents, except the current George W. Bush, have been linked, either directly or by involvement with Bilderberg’s brother group, the Trilateral Commission. The two groups have interlocking leadership and a common agenda. Here are some past presidents who have been connected:

Jerry Ford, Bilderberg; Jimmy Carter, Trilateral; Ronald Reagan, a critic of the Trilateralists until entering the White House, where he held a reception for them; Bush the Elder, Trilateral; and Bill Clinton, Bilderberg.

The White House and the departments of state, defense and treasury are always represented at Bilderberg, along with other high officials. They lie and say they are attending no such meeting. The ritzy resort that Bilderberg takes over, banishing all other guests, also lies and says no such meeting is taking place.

See this week’s center spread for the full report on this year’s meeting of the shadowy Bilderberg group.

---

Editor's comment: The bolded sentence at the end of this short piece says it all. If you are not a subscriber to American Free Press, then you are missing the meat of the issues and you are missing the special report on Bilderberg.

Subscribe today or call 1-888-699-6397 and please use my Distributor I.D. #29824. This helps to pay the bills here and we appreciate your support.

BILDERBERG SCARED

EUROPEAN NATIONALISM THROWING WRENCH IN PLANS

By James P. Tucker Jr.
May 6, 2005
American Free Press

ROTTACH-EGERN, Germany — Britons were voting even as Bilderberg was gathering here Thursday, May 5, and the British luminaries gave grudging support to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labor Party because of his backing of the pending European Constitution (EC). But they remain angry that Blair joined the United States in the invasion of Iraq.

A French referendum on the proposed EC May 29 has Bilderberg deeply concerned. The outcome is in doubt and defeat would be a severe blow to Bilderberg’s long-term effort to establish a globalist government.

Polls in March showed that, after strongly backing the EC for months, French support dropped below 50 percent. The latest poll had supporters ahead by a slight margin. But Bilderberg is still concerned because one-fourth of the supporters could change their minds.

A German Bilderberg insider said the EC is in trouble for the same reason, he hopes, that the Free Trade Area of the Americas may fail: “outsourcing” of jobs.

“American jobs are going to South America, China and India,” he said.

“Jobs in Germany and France are going to Asia and Ukraine.” Ukraine is among the former East Bloc countries that have been admitted to the European Union, bringing membership to 25.

International financiers, along with heads of state and high officials of government in the United States and Europe, are the main muscle of Bilderberg. As the European Union expanded, jobs were shipped to the new memberstates to take advantage of cheap labor — just as NAFTA affected the United States.

This accounts for the shift in sentiment in France and Germany toward the pending EC and, by extension, to the European Union. France and Germany are suffering economically as a result, while Europe-shunning Britain is relatively healthy.

Unemployment in France and Germany is high — 10 percent — because of “outsourcing” and moving plants to poor countries. Britain prospers, making it politically difficult for Blair to keep his years-old promise to Bilderberg to persuade Britons to embrace the EC.

“Protectionism is the flavor of the month,” said an unhappy Elga Bartsch, an economist at Morgan Stanley in London, which is always represented at Bilderberg.

The Financial Times carried a “pre-leak” Bilderberg story May 5, using a tongue-in-cheek style to reassure readers about “conspiracy theories.”

Writer Daniel Dombey failed to mention that his newspaper is regularly represented at Bilderberg.

He inadvertently confirmed past AFP reports with these words: “In 2003, tensions over the Iraq war boiled over.”

---

Editor's comment: The intrepid Bilderberg hound, Jim Tucker, continues to report on the machinations of the globalists in this update.

It seems those dreaded Nationalists have once again caused much consternation among the global elite. More is the pity. If it were not for their fascist tendencies, which is roughly equivalent to the transnational capitalism they practice, it is likely that the nations of the world would be experiencing moderate and sustainable prosperity.

The problem is rooted in the combination of technosocialist devotion to capitalist theory and the nanny-state which revolves around the fiat money system of the international banksters. Ever increasing debt is the symptom of this fatal economic illness typified by the Keynesian economic theorists.

Quite simply, there is no way to spend yourself into prosperity. Production of raw materials and a fair price paid to the producer, plus the addition of human labor as those materials are made into usable products is the key to all wealth. All wealth, therefore, comes from the soil and the earth.

We have been saying for some time now that modern commercialism is rooted in fascism, American-style. Hitler and Mussolini may have been defeated 60 years ago, but fascism was not. The best description we have come across is on the Mutualist Blog, as follows:

Discussing faux private interests that are actually part of the State, Brad Spangler puts a new spin on Rothbard's likening of the state to a holdup man. In the case of state capitalism, he writes, the state is just an accomplice to "private" interests:

...one robber (the literal apparatus of government) keeps you covered with a pistol while the second (representing State-allied corporations) just holds the bag that you have to drop your wristwatch, wallet and car keys in. To say that your interaction with the bagman was a “voluntary transaction” is an absurdity. Such nonsense should be condemned by all libertarians. Both gunman and bagman together are the true State.

Brilliant. I've seen too many "libertarian" defenses of big business that attempt to absolve it of any guilt for its role in this partnership. Big business is just the passive victim, so they say, forced to accept corporate welfare and obtain special privileges in self-defense against the forces of the regulatory state. According to this argument, the recipients of differential tax advantages are the good guys, managing to keep a bit more of their own money.* Complete and utter horseshit.

The rotation of personnel between senior corporate management and political appointees in government agencies is such that corporate and government leadership are, for all intents and purposes, a single power elite. Large corporations are not passive victims of the state; they act through the state. It makes about as much sense to separate them from the state, as it would have made to separate the landholding class from the state in Medieval times. The state, by definition, is the instrument of a ruling class. Sometimes the state and the ruling class are one and the same, as under Soviet-style bureaucratic collectivism. But sometimes the state is the instrument of a nominally "private" ruling class, or of a mixed ruling class of state and corporate interests (e.g. Scandinavian "social democracy").

Most of the recipes for "free market reform" I see coming from neoliberal politicians leave the gunman in place, but increase the ratio of nominally-private bagmen to gunmen. The more of the work of robbery can be "privatized" to the bagmen, supposedly, the larger the portion of all activity is nominally private. So isn't that a freer market? Isn't that "a step in the right direction"? To see some of the contemporary agitprop in favor of increased "global trade," it must be.

*Note--To those who say differential tax advantages aren't "corporate welfare," by the way: please remember that the practical effect of such exemptions is exactly the same as if we started with a corporate tax rate of zero, and then imposed a tax penalty on those not engaged in favored forms of enterprise. The effect of rapid depreciation, say, is the same as a punitive tax on those not engaged in capital-intensive forms of production. The fiscal and competitive effects are identical.

Also, do not miss the comment at the end of that piece.

A favored tool of modern fascism is free trade. This is typified by NAFTA and now CAFTA as an expansion of the former agreement, soon to cover the entire Western Hemisphere in the FTAA. The FTAA is being opposed in South America by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and an expanding coalition of South American nations.

Congressman Peter DeFazio had this Guest Viewpoint in The Register-Guard of Eugene, Oregon, about the dangers of CAFTA.

Proponents of so-called "free" trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, which I opposed, have long promised endless riches for U.S. workers, farmers, businesses and economy. They've been wrong on all counts.
Failed U.S. trade policies have led to the export of millions of high-paying American jobs, a decline in U.S. living standards, soaring trade deficits and a significant erosion of U.S. sovereignty to international trade bureaucrats.

Despite this unbroken record of failure, Congress will soon consider an agreement the Bush administration negotiated to expand NAFTA to Central America via the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). It will take significant grass-roots opposition to convince enough of my colleagues to block the free trade hucksters. Here's why CAFTA must be defeated.

• CAFTA will increase the already record-high U.S. trade deficit.

The U.S. trade deficit this year is running at an annual rate of $717.2 billion, a full $100 billion above the record deficit set last year. We must borrow nearly $2 billion every day from foreigners to finance this deficit.

Prior to NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico. In the wake of NAFTA, the surplus turned into a deficit that has risen steadily. The U.S. already has a trade deficit with the Central American countries of $1.6 billion, which will only grow under CAFTA. Deficits are dangerous because they cost jobs and put our economic and national security in the hands of foreigners who finance them.

• CAFTA will lead to the export of U.S. jobs.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicted NAFTA would create 170,000 jobs in the U.S. They were a little off. The actual result was a net loss of nearly 880,000 U.S. jobs, including more than 12,000 in Oregon. Looking at the numbers beyond NAFTA, Oregon has lost 40,000 jobs due to failed trade policies since 1994. CAFTA will be more of the same.

• CAFTA is not about exporting U.S. goods to Central America.

More than 40 percent of workers in Central America make less than $2 a day. The combined economic might of the five Central American countries is only $151 billion, about what the U.S. economy produces in five days. Even if every penny of these countries' economies was devoted to buying U.S. goods, which isn't going to happen, the impact would be insignificant to the $11 trillion U.S. economy.

The bottom line is that CAFTA is not about creating U.S. jobs and exporting U.S. goods. It is about creating a favorable climate for multinational corporations to export U.S. jobs and use Central America to export goods back into the U.S.

• CAFTA will erode U.S. sovereignty.

CAFTA allows foreign corporations to sue our government for approving laws and regulations that may impede their ability to maximize profits. If the Oregon Legislature or the U.S. Congress approves laws to protect the public health, the environment, or consumer and worker safety that a foreign company doesn't like, they can sue to get the law overturned or to require taxpayers to pay large fines in return for keeping the law on the books.

DeFazio further points out that CAFTA will prevent governments from enacting procurement rules which would give preference to local contractors or companies such as Governor John Baldacci of Maine has done with his Governors' Solar Challenge proposal for energy efficiency. This would benefit a local company, Blue Link Solar Network and create more jobs for the state economy.

This combined with true free markets rather than the free trade ideal and conventional understanding of markets which is corrupted by fascist state capitalism is one of the key components in attaining a renewed and revived national economy.

Weekly Commentary on Silver
Seven Equals Five

By Theodore Butler
May 3, 2005
Butler Research

I’m trying to avoid the short-term analysis of price movements. However, the recent swoon in the price of silver by some 40 cents, and the change in the market structure on the COMEX requires comment. While I’ll be the first to admit that I did not fully expect this blip to the downside, the one-week sell-off in silver has dramatically improved the market structure. I’m convinced that the tech funds were selling (and selling short) and the dealers were buying heavily. This is the stuff of major bottoms.

You won’t see this improvement in the most recent silver Commitment of Traders Report (COT), as the sell-off commenced immediately after the Tuesday cut-off date. But daily volume, open interest and price patterns suggest to me a major (10,000 net contract) improvement in the market structure since that report. We’re now in dimes to the downside, dollars to the upside mode.

In gold, the tech funds did finally enter the long side, according to the latest COT, but I am still unsure of their true position, as I still see evidence of a new large trader(s) in the non-commercial category. While this still means there are a number of possible outcomes, I am left with the feeling that this new trading force is stepping ahead of the dealers on both the buy and sell side, trying to capture some of the brain dead tech funds’ capital. This may explain the sharp, but relatively small moves in gold recently, as we thrash, above and below, the tech funds’ moving average signals.

Another recent development has been the unusual delivery pattern emerging in the May silver contract. On first notice day, only seven deliveries were tendered, the smallest in COMEX history, in my recollection. As I have previously written, simple economics dictates that the first delivery date in all commodities is usually the heaviest delivery day, as the deliverers gain nothing by waiting and lose the use of funds by not delivering at the earliest opportunity. One can’t help but assume that real silver availability was lacking to account for such a small number of first day’s deliveries.

The second day showed a sharp increase to 1519 deliveries, followed by 312 today. The larger second-day deliveries indicate to me that someone bought silver in the roll-over migration just before first delivery day, similar (but on a smaller scale) to the great "snookering" we saw in last July’s delivery episode. There are still over 3000 contracts open in the May contract, so we’ll have to watch developments closely. One day, we are going to have a delivery problem, mandated by the structural deficit.

As recent events have made clear, it is normal to pay close attention to COMEX delivery periods. This unusual May delivery pattern comes on the heels of the move in the March contract to a three-cent premium at the end of the delivery period. Right now, May is tighter than was the prior March contract. We have more unresolved open interest and the spreads are tighter in May than they were in the March contract at an equivalent time. That doesn’t mean May will get progressively tighter from here, as the March did, but it bears watching. Combined with the dramatically improved COT position in silver, it’s hard to imagine a more bullish backdrop.

Let me throw in one more bullish factor for the real silver investor. As the recent round of mining company earnings reports have indicated, it costs a lot more to produce an ounce of both gold and silver. Due to energy, equipment and other cost pressures, the breakeven price for silver at a primary mine appears to be $7 or higher. That’s an increase in the cost of production of some 40% in two years.

What this tells me is that silver at $7, is equivalent to silver at $5, two years ago. Just as prices below $5 proved to be excellent buy points in the past, I think the same can be said about silver prices below $7. An astute analyst said, long ago, that buying any precious metal below its cost of production is foolproof. I think that’s where we are in silver.

As long-time readers know, I have tried to get the silver mining companies to address the manipulated price of silver, with limited success. I have consistently mentioned four companies in particular, Pan American, Hecla, Coeur d’Alene, because they are primary silver producers, and Apex, because it is sitting on such a large cash position. Additionally, the management of these companies purports to be leaders in the silver industry.

It still amazes me that these companies have done nothing to fight for their shareholders and bring attention to the silver price-fixing games on the COMEX. They should see clearly the price setting that takes place between the dealers and tech funds. Instead, these companies continue to pretend the price of silver is set freely and fairly. Here’s a bit of advice for them intended to help suffering shareholders – forget gimmicks like minting your own silver items for the retail public, and speak up about the wholesale manipulation on the COMEX.

---

Editor's comment: We can't help but agree with Ted Butler on the coming explosion of the price of silver. When the structural deficit hits and there are delivery defaults, it will signal a surge in the price of silver that should see a doubling in price to the $12 to $15 range.

And this will just be the beginning. Silver is a buy and long term hold. So look to keep what you have stashed away for at least the next three to five years. The price has nowhere to go but up.

And we will recommend that you investigate the Liberty Dollar as a means to start a vibrant local economy as has happened in Berryville, Arkansas. Wayne Hicks has turned that town and the surrounding area into an economic prosperity zone.

Now as far as the premiums on the Liberty Dollar being a bit higher than if you would be getting regular bullion. It simply is not the same thing. Bullion or one ounce rounds you would sock away in the safe for the long term. Liberty Dollars are meant to circulte as money. And once they are in circulation, they tend to stay in circulation.

For instance, in Berryville, people come from miles around to patronize the merchants who accept Liberty Dollars. Even though there may be a small number who take the silver pieces home and put them away (not a bad idea considering where silver prices will be heading), most folks do not have the disposable income to do this and will return to these merchants again and again to trade with Liberty Dollars.

This is a WIN-WIN for everyone since if you have some Liberty Dollars when the Daily Moving Average goes over $8.00 for 30 days, we move to the $20 Silver Base from the current $10 Silver Base. In other words, you will double your money when this event occurs.

The trick is to turn your town, community or neighborhood in a LibertyDollarVille and make you local economy a place people want to come back to again and again.



Liberty Dollars - Returning America to Value - One Dollar at a Time

Farming for Families and Food,
Not Corporate Profits

By Corrina Steward
April 19, 2005
Foreign Policy In Focus
Editor: Emira Woods,
Institute for Policy Studies

Two contradictory visions of globalization are sweeping around the world: one favors a top-down model of economic development via militaristic, corporate aggression. The other favors grassroots-led, democratic pluralism and seeks to produce diverse local development models suited to the needs of local communities.

Proof of these inconsistencies abounds. Paul Wolfowitz’s election to the presidency of the World Bank signifies the advancement of a militaristic approach to controlling global resources; at the same time, thousands around the world continue to protest against the war in Iraq and other examples of U.S. imperialism. Schemes to privatize water, agricultural crops, and other life-giving resources continue to be pushed through proposed trade agreements and state-corporate relationships; yet, global social movements are calling for community sovereignty with unprecedented forcefulness and international solidarity.

One of the biggest ironies is that global agricultural production is regulated by international trade rules when nearly 90% of food is produced for local consumption and never traded on the global market. José Bové, a leader of the international farmers' movement Via Campesina, points out that, “No one would have believed [before the World Trade Organization came into existence] that we would get to the point where the biggest social movement in the world is a farmers’ movement.”1

It is indeed surprising that agriculture--the most rudimentary form of industrial capitalism--is at the center of trade conflicts during this advanced stage of global industrialization. Yet, it also indicates a huge misunderstanding by free marketers of the local realities in the agricultural regions of the developing world, and even in U.S. and European farming communities.

Trade Rules for All, Benefit Few

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) focuses on market access, export subsidies, and domestic support as a means for implementing a fair trading system. Reform in these areas focuses on export-oriented farming, which receives the majority of government support, and does not guarantee improved livelihoods for the farmers producing for non-export markets or on a small scale.

The WTO measures overlook several practices and trends, including the key issues of dumping of overproduced commodities and corporate control of the agricultural market.

A recent Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy report pointed out that dumping is a human rights issue: “Coupled with the lack of social safety nets, [dumping] has caused serious human rights concerns since the implementation of the AoA, particularly for small-scale farmers who lose their livelihoods due to competition from subsidized, dumped imports.”2 The human rights argument goes even further. Not only does dumping eliminate economic opportunities for rural communities, it denies local farmers the social and cultural values of their farming practices.

Corporate control of agricultural markets is intricately linked to government subsidies and also has human rights implications. In February, the Bush administration proposed reducing the annual ceiling on payments to U.S. farmers from $360,000 to $250,000. George Naylor, president of the National Family Farmer Coalition (NFFC), argues that this would pit U.S. cotton and rice producers against other U.S. commodity producers because the caps would only affect the former.3

Rather than allow a rift between U.S. commodity producers, Naylor insists, “Farmers have got to get together to say ‘this is ridiculous.’ We’re destroying our communities, our resources, all for the benefit of a few corporations. This policy is not good for us, for the United States. It’s only good for those few corporations.”

Corporate agribusinesses are the main profiteers of subsidies as they provide the means for keeping production costs low. Subsidies perpetuate a vicious cycle of poverty and resource degradation by encouraging overproduction of crops, soil erosion, increased pesticide use, below-cost prices, and deflated farmer income. Agribusiness benefits from subsidies through the lowering of crop prices, which minimizes their costs and increases their profits.

“The same forces that are working against farmers in Africa and El Salvador are working against farmers in Iowa,” Naylor concludes. Due to the poverty and resource degradation cycle, producers are forced to take whatever price commodity buyers offer--limiting farmers’ capacity to define their livelihoods.

Democratizing Global Agriculture

As trade agreements seek to homogenize global agriculture policies and production, Via Campesina--a global network of farmers with as many as 200 million members--is calling for local policies and diversified production models. They are making farming communities’ needs central to agricultural policies and providing a much-needed reality check to U.S. and European Union trade negotiators.

Via Campesina has begun to carve out a new policy space in global agricultural politics for “food sovereignty.” The concept of food sovereignty is gaining political and social leverage as proposals like the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) continue to threaten the ability of family farmers in both the North and the South to determine how food will be produced and who will make food production decisions. Via Campesina’s members believe in “the peoples’, Countries’, or State Unions’ RIGHT (sic) to define their agricultural and food policy, without any dumping vis-à-vis third countries.”4

Inserting food sovereignty into current agricultural trade and policy debates reframes them to approach national resources from a human rights approach rather than an economic one. The human right to essential resources is not a new concept. Several United Nations treaties already recognize the right to food, and traditional community rights over biodiversity are supported by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

With food sovereignty, the rights-based approach to international dialogue has resulted in new alliances between the global North and South, such as the alliance between U.S. farmer groups like the NFFC and peasant farming organizations in Central and South America . The food sovereignty fight is a multinational farmers’ struggle against corporate agribusiness and the national and international policies that support them.

Rather than focusing on limiting subsidies, NFFC explains that the poverty and resource degradation cycle could be controlled by:

1) Increasing global commodity prices through price supports;

2) Maintaining reserves of excess production to be used in times of need (e.g., drought) and as a means of maintaining steady commodity prices; and

3) Stopping production of a given commodity when there is an oversupply.

To implement these measures requires the right to prevent foreign imports from flooding national and local agricultural markets and reigning in corporate influence on the market. Cultivating local control begins with solidifying basic rights: rights to land and water and rights to political and social capital for marginalized communities.

Signs of Change

Despite the refusal of U.S. leadership to acknowledge that democratic, grassroots approaches to development are popularly supported world-wide, this model is gaining considerable ground. Every day, the Landless Peoples’ Movement in Brazil gains access to land necessary for community self-sufficiency and demonstrates that local control of vital resources is more environmentally and economically sustainable. Other movements-- from local food networks in the U.S. , to cross-border agro-ecological collaborations in Central America-- are formulating their own community-based development models.

Via Campesina is changing the language of agricultural trade from a language of corporatization to a language of farmers’ rights and local sovereignty. This resistance to corporate agriculture is the basis of hope for rural communities around the world.

Corrina Steward is a resource rights specialists at Grassroots International in Boston, MA. She wrote this commentary for Foreign Policy In Focus. For more information on social movements working on food sovereignty and the Resource Rights for All initiative, go to: www.grassrootsonline.org.

Endnotes

Bove’s comments are taken from a talk on “Food Sovereignty and Resource Rights” at Grassroots International in Boston, MA on March 7, 2005.

Smaller, C. 2005. Planting the Rights Seed: A Human Rights Perspective on Agricultural Trade and the WTO. Backgrounder No. 1, THREAD Series, IATP: Minneapolis , MN .

Naylor’s comments are taken from a talk on “Food Sovereignty and Resource Rights” at Grassroots International in Boston, MA on March 7, 2005.

Via Campesina. 2003. What is Food Sovereignty? http://www.viacampesina.org/IMG/_article_PDF/article_216.pdf

---

Editor's comment: Corrina Steward does a fairly good representation here in outlining the problem of corporate agribusiness.

We might add that this also includes companies such as the GMO seed producer Monsanto plus others, and must necessarily also include the chemical companies which produce herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers. And also Archer Daniels Midland which has taken controll of the ethanol production and related government subsidies. Butanol is a much better alcohol fuel and would benefit farmers and many others much more.

What she fails to grasp completely, and misidentifies as another form of globalism, is the nationalism that is apparent in the so-called "global social movement" which is, as she puts it, "calling for community sovereignty."

We will make a clarification here that is so very important; several clarifications. To do this we must have clear definitions of globalism and nationalism.

For this we take an excerpt from our home page. In the following excerpt, we define both nationalism and internationalism. Internationalists are, of course, globalists.

PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM vs. INTERNATIONALISM
Our thanks to the staff of American Free Press for the following excerpts from their editorial as it appeared in Vol. 1, No. 14, November 26, 2001.

“In the book, Populism vs. Plutocracy, published by the assassinated patriotic and nationalist organization, Liberty Lobby, the following definition of nationalism appears on page 275:

NATIONALISM. Populists are nationalists and patriots, but do not blindly “rally round the flag,” locking in step with the whims of the plutocratic elite that has manipulated patriotism for its own baleful aims. True nationalists believe in developing and strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage and historic sovereign borders and they place their own nation’s interests first. They do not start wars of imperialism and respect the national instincts of others. The plutocrats condemn nationalism precisely because it interferes with their aim to submerge all nations into a Global Plantation under their domination. Nationalists around the globe increasingly understand this menace.

That doesn’t sound bad at all. In fact, it’s downright attractive to the editors of this newspaper and probably to you too.”

Now, if you don’t think it sounds good, then you must be an internationalist. The editorial states further, “That term, too, is defined in this book. See page 273 and read the definition of that term:

INTERNATIONALISM. A hope of naïve idealists that the eradication of all national and racial borders will usher in world peace in which everyone will live happily ever after. Internationalism has been a dream of poets and religious leaders for millennia. In actual application, however, internationalism can only produce mass confusion and tension, anarchy and violence. Internationalists are used by plutocrats, who finance their activities, to break down national boundaries and promote multiculturalism, an essential step to complete their conquest of the world and the formal erection of their world super state, the Global Plantation.

And how does this relate to “patriotism”? We continue again from the editorial, “…patriotism and nationalism are very different…they’re opposites. Patriotism is an emotion. All sorts of people can be patriots — or imagine themselves to be.

“On the other hand, nationalism is a philosophy, nothing emotional about it. It is a recipe, a concrete plan.

“The only alternative to nationalism is internationalism. If you’re not one, you must be the other. If you’re not a nationalist, you must be an internationalist, and vice versa.

“If you’re not a nationalist you have to be a “citizen of the world” — an internationalist.”

Indeed, long after the folly of the internationalists and their global transnational capitalism has been dismantled, there will still exist simple capitalism, not necessarily the industrial capitalism spoken of in the foregoing article.

People will always need basics of survival such as food, clothing, shelter and other necessities. Thus, there will always be simple capitalism. It is the modern fascist form of supercapitalism embodied in the form of the transnational corporations that is bleeding the wealth of the peole nd destroying prosperity.

To see why globalism and unrestrained international capitalism is nothing short of suicidal for the future of the economic well being of the entire world we must get a clear picture of The Nature of Wealth (online book).

Hopefully you have all strapped on your thinking caps, though it seems that the only group who might have a problem with that are the institutional economists who have been brainwashed into believing the myth of Keynesian economics, specifically, that we can gain prosperity with deficit spending. The lie is exposed since in America we borrow $2.16 to produce each $1.00 in GDP. Charles Walters explains,

"When confronted with the truth of NORM's (National Organization for Raw Materials) data, these politicians and academics swallow hard and follow with the great intellectual response, "Yes, but things have changed, the old rules no longer hold. Yes, but America has become a service economy. Yes, but we live in a global economy. Yes, but with space satellites and the Internet, we communicate with the world at will so we can create wealth by human will". They laugh when we suggest this codified opulence rests on the laws of energy and thermodynamics and a nation's willingness to apply these laws to its economic system. The mere suggestion that irrefutable economic laws govern our economy and consistently yield certain overall ratios of cost to income and savings bring think tanks up fighting from their chairs, even though the entire apparatus of organized society is governed by these same laws."

And organizations such as National Family Farmer Coalition (NFFC) still maintain that there should be price supports when the Private Enterprise System has the ability to regulate prices in the following manner: production times price equals income. That is, parity equals cost of production plus a living wage to farmers. This is the mechanism that will set the prices, and government only needs to affirm it, not support it in any way other than to set the guidelines for determining parity. Charles Walters states further,

"Therefore, when the total annual production of goods and services flow through the economy at their 100% natural par value, (the intrinsic value rather than the perceived value of a product or service), then sufficient income is created along the way to distribute and consume those same products and services every year without creating excessive debt in the process. Thus a failure within the pricing system at the raw materials stage of production is especially harmful because it is duplicated each time the raw material flows through another stage of the economy."

Parity to raw material producers is the impetus that drives the economic engine of the nation. And it will do it without creating debt since it is all earned income and none of it is siphoned off the pay the usury of the banksters.

Every dollar spent by a farmer produces a seven times (1 to 7) trade turn in the economy. That means for every dollar a farmer spends it creates seven more dollars further along in the economic cycle. For other raw material producers it is a one to five trade turn.

Truly, the deadliest enemy of a free society has been the demise of independent (private) enterprise and the family farm. This is the final curtain for the most dramatic social experiment in history: the American Dream.

There is a way to stop it — the construction of an economy operating in tune with the laws of physics.

For more information on how U.S. prosperity and the economy has been betrayed by corporate interests see the book by Charles Walters, UNFORGIVEN, The American Economic System SOLD for Debt and War.

And also study The Nature of Wealth (online book), by the National Organization for Raw Materials (NORM) above for much more information on this vital subject.