Monday, January 29, 2007

The Battle at Najaf: Competing Narratives

Editor's note: I am moving over to the other blog(see new articles below, too).
Juan Cole

Fighters for Shiite Messiah Clash with Najaf Security, 250 Dead

Well, a big battle took place at the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Saturday night into Sunday, but there are several contradictory narratives about its significance. Iraqi authorities, claimed that the Iraqi army killed a lot of the militants (250) but only took 25 casualties itself. The Shiite governor of Najaf implied that the guerrillas were Sunni Arabs and had several foreign Sunni fundamentalist fighters ("Afghans") among them. He said that they based themselves in an orchard recently purchased by Baathists. Other sources said that the militants were Shiites. I'd take the claim of numbers killed with a large grain of salt, though the Iraqi forces did have US close air support. I infer that the guerrillas shot down one US helicopter.

That's one narrative. Here is another. The pan-Arab London daily al-Hayat reported that the militiamen were followers of Mahmud al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. It says one of his followers asserted that the fighting erupted when American and Iraqi troops attempted to arrest al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. The latter tried last summer to take over the shrine of al-Husayn in Karbala. It may have been feared that he would take advantage of the chaos of the Muharram pilgrimage season to make a play for power in Najaf. Al-Hayat says that although As'ad Abu Kalil, governor of Najaf, said the attackers were Sunnis, the director of the information center in Najaf, Ahmad Abdul Husayn Du'aybil, contradicted him. The latter said, "At dawn, today [Sunday], violent clashes took place between security forces and an armed militia calling itself "the Army of Heaven," which claims that the Imam Mahdi will [soon] appear." He added, "The goal of this militia is the killing of clergymen and the grand ayatollahs." The group follows Ayatollah Ahmad al-Hasani al-Sarkhi, called al-Yamani, who is said by his followers to be in direct touch with the Hidden Imam or promised one. In the fighting 10 Iraqi security police were killed and 17 wounded. One official said that the death toll among the militants was not known.

Al-Hayat, however, quotes a member of the group, Abu al-Hasan, who is said to be close to al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. He said that the rumors that the group intended to conduct a campaign of assassinations inside Najaf was "devoid of truth." It says that an attempt had been made to arrest al-Hasani al-Sarkhi, who was present in the al-Zarkah, an agricultural area east of Najaf, which caused his followers to revolt.

Al-Hasani al-Sarkhi's followers had earlier burned down the Iranian consulates at Basra and Karbala, and demonstrated in Hilla and elsewhere.

Sawt al-Iraq in Arabic says that a number of al-Hasani al-Sarkhi's aides were arrested early last week as part of the current crackdown in preparation for the American surge.

Then there is yet a third narrative. Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that on Saturday night into Sunday morning, a Shiite millenarian militia calling itself "The Army of Heaven" (Jund al-Sama') attempted to move south from the Zarqa orchards just north of Najaf to assassinate the four grand ayatollahs of Najaf-- Ali Sistani, Bashir Najafi, Muhammad Ishaq Fayyad and Muhammad Said al-Hakim. The holy city of Najaf, where Ali is buried, is the seat of Shiite religious authority in Iraq. The militiamen, devotees of an obscure religious leader named Ahmad Hassaani, are said to have infiltrated the area from Hillah, Kut and Amara. The well-armed, black-clad militiamen were heard to call upon the Mahdi, the awaited Promised One of the Muslims, to return on that night.

This group is not the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which bears no enmity toward the grand ayatollahs, but rather a separate and different sect altogether. Shiite clerics told the NYT that the sect is the Mahdawiya of Ahmad al-Basri (possibly Ahmad Hassaani al-Basri?). Although the NYT was told that this millenarian sect (it believes that the end of time is around the corner) was supported by Saddam, you can't pay any attention to that sort of allegation when it comes to Iraqi sectarianism.

It seems most likely that this was Shiite on Shiite violence, with millenarian cultists making an attempt to march on Najaf during the chaos of the ritual season of Muharram. But who knows? It is also possible that the orthodox Shiites in control of Najaf hate the heretic millenarians and the threat of the latter was exaggerated. Darned if I know. The reports of the Army of Heaven being so well armed make no sense if it was a ragtag millenarian band. But those reports could be exaggerations, too.

It seems most likely that the Mahdawiya is the sect of Sheikh Mahmud al-Hasani al-Sarkhi and that al-Basri was the founder of the sect. That would be a way of reconciling al-Zaman with al-Hayat.

The dangers of Shiite on Shiite violence in Iraq are substantial, as this episode demonstrated. Ironically, given Bush's mantra about Iran, the trouble makers here are a sect that absolutely hates Iran.

Making Sense of the Middle East

by Sonia Nettnin

"The underlying message is that if the international community takes the time to learn more about the Middle East and its people, they can demystify why there is violence and what are the needs of the people. The more knowledge people have means they can push for effective legislation that alleviates pain and suffering."

(Chicago) – Middle East journalist and author Rami Khouri said the US needs to be consistent when it deals with countries in the Middle East.

As editor of the Middle East’s largest English newspaper, the Beirut Daily Star, Khouri explained there are solutions to the multiple conflicts and violence in the Middle East. It requires the synthesis of five, crucial criteria: sovereignty, authentic societal identity, legitimacy of statehood institutions, stability (without occupation), and economic development for normal relations with the rest of the world and its non-Arab neighbors.

The fusion of these five benchmarks, united with consistency, may bring about a beneficial result: an Arab World that wants to constructively engage with the US.

“It’s important the region the Middle East is still defined by more than 300 million people who try to go to work, try to support their children, who identify with faith, ethnicity…masses of ordinary people trying to live decent lives,” Khouri said. “What we have to do is look at these issues in the Arab world and I think we need to take a step back and see how we address their legitimate needs.”

According to Khouri, an estimated 65 per cent of the Arab World is under the age of 30. Moreover, many people within this young population are extremely politically frustrated for a variety of reasons: Israeli occupation and expansion; people put in prison by Arab governments; and the chronic accumulative abuse of people.

“Much of the Arab-Islamic region this is how they perceive, not necessarily saying this is how it is,” Khouri said. He quoted recent American surveys (sources not mentioned) that found three out of four people in the Arab World think the US wants to dominate and weaken Islamic societies – that they are being targeted by the US. The public’s perception, along with the divide between a small class of wealthy Arabs and the largely unstable economic societies, results in the severe polarization of society.

He explained that the Western intervention (in the Arab World) is much more intrusive compared to the past. He described recent events as a Western directive to “…change the political genetics in the Arab world – change their religion moderate Islam – change their society, economic systems…value system and who we are…there is a resentment throughout the region against the US – dictating not consulting…change your government and overthrow your regimes…breeds a lot of resentment and resistance.”

Other contributing factors that lead to polarization are the abuse of power people feel is prevalent in their own societies, along with internal abuses to which they have been subjected.

“More and more of these young people are going into Islamic movements – a few are going into Al Qaeda – practicing terrorism against civilians – Arab targets, Islamic targets, Western targets – but the number of people who go into this business is very small,” Khouri said. “The biggest instigator of terror now is the American presence in Iraq.”

His assessment is that most of the Islamic organizations that are changing society are peaceful. When it comes into contact with Israeli occupation, when they meet, there is military resistance against Israeli occupation.

“What you are seeing between Arab societies and Iran is a new spirit of defiance and resistance,” Khouri said, which he believes is important historically.

Khouri described the past, three Arab generations as docile. Even though there were passionate and emotional expressions of Arab nationalism with power structures and political resistance in the 50s, 60s and 70s, he sees an end to Arab passiveness because people are mobilizing and contesting power.

What are the forms of power in the Middle East?

Power exists in four forms: economic, military, information, and the iconography of identity. The three major protagonists utilizing power and force in the region are the governments, the opposition groups and then the US, British invasion, which “…completely changed the nature of the situation in the region and causes new challenges in the rapid growth of non-state militias,” Khouri added.

What are the current discussions about democracy in both the Arab World and in Bush’s White House?

“Democracy is in a deep freeze,” Khouri said, “because people look at Iraq and they see a very big problem with violence, strife, bloodshed and abuse of power; and they look at Palestine and see they were starved, sanctioned and besieged; and so any small bud of faith in democracy has been shattered for the time being in the Arab World.”

How do people in the Middle East define themselves and what are the components that make up their personal and collective identity?

People identify with some or all of the following characteristics: ethnicity, culture, geography, religion, ideology, patriotism, nationalism, communal ethnic and/or tribal identities. These elements create different kinds of law and “…societies need to assert themselves without an occupying foreign power telling them no,” Khouri added, provided their expressions are peaceful and they do not threaten their neighbors. All of these factors make up the regional dynamics of citizenry.

Khouri sees loose alliances forming between different groups in the region. Whether they have answers to jobs, good governments, citizenship rights, solving Israel (whether war or peace), energy issues, educations issues, and equity issues for ordinary people is debatable.

When asked why he did not mention the role of oil he explained that oil is not a major driver – either access or price – for the US.

There was no mention of the future for Arab-Christians or other marginalized communities in the Middle East.

Overall, the general public wants to see a prosperous future where they have access to basic needs, jobs, education, and economic opportunities. People want a future for their children.

When asked about President George W. Bush, Khouri said he wants him “to relax, to analyze things more accurately; to pursue a policy that reflects American values and not contradicts,” including equality and justice.

The world watches to see the US application of the American creed, the United States Declaration of Independence “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

Khouri’s point is that the world watches to sees if US actions are based on these assertions.

The underlying message is that if the international community takes the time to learn more about the Middle East and its people, they can demystify why there is violence and what are the needs of the people. The more knowledge people have means they can push for effective legislation that alleviates pain and suffering.

Whether the future architecture of the Middle East will have security and stability for a prosperous future depends on what happens now.

ECB's Trichet to Examine M3 Data `Very Carefully'


By Andreas Scholz and John Fraher

Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- European Central Bank President Jean- Claude Trichet said he will ``very, very carefully examine'' figures that yesterday showed money-supply growth in the euro region accelerated to the fastest pace in 17 years.

``It confirms what we have already said and what I have already said in the name of the governing council,'' said Trichet in an interview in Davos, Switzerland, where he is attending the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.

Trichet has signaled the ECB will raise the benchmark 3.5 percent interest rate in March, which would be the seventh increase since the end of 2005, partly to slow the flow of liquidity. The ECB yesterday said M3 growth, its preferred measure of money supply, surged 9.7 percent in December, more than double the rate it says risks fueling inflation.

ECB council member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi echoed Trichet's concern in a speech he delivered today in Milan. Growth probably exceeded 2.5 percent last year, he said, and would continue to be ``close to or even above its potential'' this year and next.

``The current level of interest rates definitely doesn't constitute a hindrance to growth,'' Bini Smaghi said. The ECB's strategy to increase rates before inflationary pressures mount ``has proven correct, and will continue in coming months.''

The Frankfurt-based central bank defines potential growth, the speed at which the 13-nation economy can grow without fueling inflation, at between 2 percent and 2.5 percent.

`Not Sustainable'

Trichet, elaborating on one of the most popular talking points at this year's meeting, said on a panel today that financial markets are vulnerable to any shock that could hurt the global economy and their risk appetite is ``not necessarily sustainable.''

Investors and policy makers ``have to be prepared for a reappreciation of risk'' which is ``likely,'' said Trichet, sitting next to Chinese deputy central bank governor Wu Xiaoling and Israel central bank governor Stanley Fischer. Such a move may be ``smooth'' or ``disorderly,'' he said.

Trichet cited oil prices, the unraveling of so-called global imbalances and geopolitical conflicts as potential risks to the global economy.

Several measures show perception of risk is near historic lows. The risk of owning European corporate bonds dropped to the lowest ever this week, according to credit-default swap traders. The amount of debt used to finance European buyouts reached a record high in the third quarter.

IMF View

John Lipsky, first deputy managing director at the International Monetary Fund, said the level of risk priced in financial markets is appropriate.

``The global economy turned out much better than expected so it's not surprising that risk measure should be moving in a favorable direction,'' he said in an interview. ``Markets often overshoot and adjust back so that wouldn't be surprise. But the fact that there's something fundamentally wrong is not obvious.''

Trichet said central banks need to ``remain very, very alert'' to the risks of inflation and can't take anything for granted. In an interview yesterday, Bundesbank President Axel Weber said the ECB must continue raising rates to keep a lid on consumer prices.

``We have to take this process of withdrawing monetary stimulation further,'' according to Weber, who also heads Germany's Bundesbank.

Investors expect the ECB to raise its key rate twice more this year, futures markets suggest.

Rate Forecasts

The yield on the three-month Euribor futures contract for March closed at 3.92 percent yesterday. The December contract was at 4.17 percent. The contracts settle to the three-month inter- bank offered rate for the euro, which has averaged 16 basis points more than the ECB's benchmark rate since the currency's start in 1999.

Trichet said global growth this year will probably be close to its levels in recent years. The International Monetary Fund says the global economy expanded 5.1 percent in 2006 and 4.9 percent in 2005.

``We have a good probability to have a present year which could be in line with previous years,'' according to Trichet. Still, policy makers, investors and executives should guard against ``complacency'' given the risks facing the global economy, he said.

Growth in the euro region will probably be ``just above'' 2 percent this year, said Trichet, whose bank in December forecast the economy will expand around 2.2 percent this year.

When asked about global currencies, Trichet said he's sticking to the Group of Seven's agreed position and declined to comment further.

To contact the reporters on this story: John Fraher in Davos at

Last Updated: January 27, 2007 08:34 EST

Bush: U.S. will 'respond firmly' if Iran expands role in Iraq

West dismissive of call for 'timeout' in Iran nuclear crisis
Report: Iran plans to get involved in Iraq
Bush warns Iran against action in Iraq

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 1 hour, 37 minutes ago

Deeply distrustful of Iran, President Bush said Monday "we will respond firmly" if Tehran escalates its military actions in Iraq and threatens American forces or Iraqi citizens.

Bush's warning was the latest move in a bitter and more public standoff between the United States and Iran. The White House expressed skepticism about Iran's plans to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq. The United States has accused Iran of supporting terrorism in Iraq and supplying weapons to kill American forces.

"If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and - or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio.

The president's comments reinforced earlier statements from the White House.

"If Iran wants to quit playing a destructive role in the affairs of Iraq and wants to play a constructive role, we would certainly welcome that," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. But, he said, "We've seen little evidence to date (of constructive activities) and frankly all we have seen is evidence to the contrary."

Sharply at odds over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, Washington and Tehran are arguing increasingly about Iraq. American troops in Iraq have been authorized to kill or capture Iranian agents deemed to be a threat. "If you're in Iraq and trying to kill our troops, then you should consider yourself a target," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week.

Iran's plans in Iraq were outlined by Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qumi in an interview with The New York Times. He said Iran was prepared to offer Iraqi government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called "the security fight," the newspaper reported. He said that in the economic area, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq.

"We have experience of reconstruction after war," the ambassador said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. "We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis."

Johndroe said the Bush administration was looking at what the ambassador had to say.

The White House says there has been growing evidence over the last several months that Iran is supporting terrorists inside Iraq and is a major supplier of bombs and other weapons used to target U.S. forces. In recent weeks, U.S. forces have detained a number of Iranian agents in Iraq.

"It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them," Bush said on Friday.

Pelosi, Other Top Dems Fail To Disclose Charity Roles

Pelosi, two other Democrats failed to disclose roles in family charities

Updated 1/29/2007 12:11 AM ET

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana also did not report they serve as family foundation directors, according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA TODAY.

All three foundations are funded and controlled by the lawmakers and their spouses, and do not solicit donations from outside sources.

RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT?: Dems give their own money

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Friday the speaker will amend her reports. He said it "was an oversight" that she had not listed her position dating back to 1992.

Members of Congress and top executive branch officials are required to file yearly reports on their personal finances, including any positions they hold with businesses or non-profits. At least 16 other lawmakers from both parties have reported holding similar positions, records show.

Bayh spokeswoman Meghan Keck said it was "simply an oversight" that he did not disclose his charity role. Bayh has since amended his reports, Keck said.

Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Conference, does not believe the law requires him to disclose his foundation post, spokeswoman Kathleen Connery said. "We believe we're following the instructions of the (ethics) committee exactly right, but if we're not, we'll amend our report," she said.

Stanley Brand, a former House general counsel, said the 1978 federal ethics law does not allow lawmakers to omit their positions with family non-profits.

Pelosi and other Democrats made ethics and greater transparency of how they do business a top priority in the 2006 elections. When the Democratic-controlled Congress convened Jan. 4, the House changed its ethics rules but did not specifically address financial disclosure forms.

The Senate passed an ethics bill earlier this month that would boost penalties for knowingly filing false financial disclosure statements.

"Despite all the ethics reforms, there's still no enforcement," said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor and head of the liberal-leaning Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington.

Filing a false report could be prosecuted as a felony, Sloan and Brand said, but prosecutions are rare. Last year, then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist failed to report his role in a family charity. He updated his disclosure form and wasn't punished.

Muslims fight for Political,not Religious reasons

Written by Salim Lone
Salim Lone is a former spokesman for the UN mission in Iraq.

Friday, 26 January 2007

I HAVE LOTS OF CRITICS. One is a close Kenyan friend whose judgment I respect greatly. He was one of those who felt I was too critical of US policy in the Middle East.

When the US midterm election resulted in an anti-Bush landslide, he called to say he had been wrong. "You have been vindicated by the Americans themselves," he said. I wish events would prove me right more often!

My articles criticising US attacks on Somalia to topple the Islamic Courts Union and on the advanced US plans to attack Iran also received a lot of criticism, although as usual, many more agreed than disagreed with me.

On my Iran article, one criticism was that Iran's President Ahmadinejad was a dangerous leader who must be stopped from developing nuclear weapons.

It is true Mr Ahmadinejad has made some extremely provocative statements about Israel and Jews. Talk of "wiping Israel off the map" is particularly unacceptable. Besides threatening peace, such provocative assertions needlessly give Iran's enemies ammunition with which to undermine it.

But those who believe that President Bush is threatening Iran because it is led by Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are well off the mark. Whoever was Iran's leader, the US would oppose Iran's developing civilian nuclear technology, even though doing so is its sovereign right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Indeed, the NPT requires that nuclear-armed nations assist others in developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, as a way to encourage compliance with broader non-proliferation goals.

Interestingly, while a global BBC poll this week showed people worldwide strongly disapproved of America's aggressive policy on Iran by a 62 to 23 per cent margin, Kenyans recorded a higher level of support for the US stance than any other country's nationals - more even than Americans themselves, who opposed the Bush approach by a 50 to 40 per cent margin!

Kenya, in fact, turned out to be among the only three countries which recorded a positive view of the US, along with the Philippines and Nigeria. I imagine one reason is that we Kenyans have suffered from two terrorist attacks, and also that all three countries have sizeable Muslim minorities which make the majority population worry about Islamic radicalism. Our leaders, clerical and otherwise, should be developing ways to tackle this divisive religious split.

This brings me to the critics of my Somalia article. It seems a very large number of people are convinced that "Islamists" and "Jihad" are dirty words, connoting a desire to forcibly convert the world to Islam.

When the Islamic Courts Union declared a jihad last month against invading Ethiopian soldiers, that sealed their fate for many Kenyans and the international media.

A grossly illegal action, invasion, became much less important than a word. Jihad, of course, has been portrayed in the media as a "holy war" and reinforces the propagandistic notion that Islam was spread by the sword.

Jihad has many interpretations even for Muslims, but a holy war to convert the enemy is not one of them. Forcible conversion is forbidden by the Qu'ran.

Jihad means struggle, and its many incarnations include a struggle within oneself to rise to a higher spirituality, a struggle of the "pen" to convince others of your religion's authenticity, and, of course, its most commonly used formulation, which is the struggle against tyranny and injustice.

Those Muslims who fight against occupations invoke their religion in order to mobilise the people. That is no different from others invoking freedom, democracy or human rights as rallying cries for war. What should determine our view of all wars are not the rallying cries but whether they are "just."

The vast majority of Muslims who fight such wars do so for political reasons; those who do so for religious reasons are a tiny, tiny minority. That is why the intense conflicts we see are primarily in occupied Muslim countries.

In any event, if unlawful violence is perpetrated by those who are Muslim, or for that matter Christian, Jew or Hindu, that does not mean that we can malign all those who belong to that religion.

From this morning's blogging of the Libby trial proceedings

From this morning's blogging of the Libby trial proceedings:

…W You remember reading that Wilson's wife was employed by CIA. After Novak disclosed Mr. Wilson's wife. Is it correct that the talking points you were using WRT OVP was using did not change. At no time after it was disclosed did OVP change its position that the talking points should be on the merits and there was no need to mention Mrs. Wilson.

M We did not change our talking points.

W If you look at talking points before and after there is no mention of Mrs. Wilson. Is it fair to say that when the Novak article came out, from your personal perspective that was not viewed as a big article.

M It wasn't a huge revelation to me because I KNEW, I knew it was a big deal that he had disclosed it.… (emphasis emptywheel)

Well, that pretty much undercuts that whole "who could have known because my busy job made me lie" defense, doesn't it? So much for the "we weren't focusing on Wilson at all and 'the wife' was an afterthought," too.

Read the rest of this entry »

From this morning's blogging of the Libby trial proceedings

From this morning's blogging of the Libby trial proceedings:

…W You remember reading that Wilson's wife was employed by CIA. After Novak disclosed Mr. Wilson's wife. Is it correct that the talking points you were using WRT OVP was using did not change. At no time after it was disclosed did OVP change its position that the talking points should be on the merits and there was no need to mention Mrs. Wilson.

M We did not change our talking points.

W If you look at talking points before and after there is no mention of Mrs. Wilson. Is it fair to say that when the Novak article came out, from your personal perspective that was not viewed as a big article.

M It wasn't a huge revelation to me because I KNEW, I knew it was a big deal that he had disclosed it.… (emphasis emptywheel)

Well, that pretty much undercuts that whole "who could have known because my busy job made me lie" defense, doesn't it? So much for the "we weren't focusing on Wilson at all and 'the wife' was an afterthought," too.

Read the rest of this entry »

This Is What 'Civil War' Looks Like

Dramatic footage of mostly Shia Iraqi soldiers delivering a brutal beating to several local Sunnis. The US soldiers, assigned to train the Iraqi, look on as the Iraq soldiers push the beaten men into the rear compartment of an armored vehicle.

12 Damn good reasons why I oppose Hillary Clinton

Jan 29, 2006

First things first as you can already tell from the title of the diary I am NOT a fan of Queen Hillary. I am still amazed to read entries by sicka-fans who drool over voting for her in '08. She is not the best candidate and her so called experience isn't shit since she hasn't shown real leadership by challenging the crooks and liars illegally occupying the White House for two consecutive terms. How can she think that we can take her seriously when she has never challenged King Bush over what he has stated in the last 5-6 years. What kind of person can't stand up and say enough is enough after what Bush has said and done over the years?

"I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy.

"I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president".

"In a time of war, the president must have the power he needs to make the tough decisions, including, if need be, the decision to grant himself even more power".

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future".

I am amazed at how so called "progressives" are actually glad that she is running when she happens to be the darling of corporate America, that she is some how going to actually represent the non DLC members of the Democratic party who oppose so called Free Trade policies that send middle class jobs to third world countries due to the lack of enforcement of business practices, labor laws and lax environmental laws.

Kos did a great job on his article in the Washington post and yesterday’s post about the same issue as me. I am sick of how the media is bowing down to Hillary. Even of all places Fox News. Murdoch is gaga over Hillary. The real 411 on Murdoch. When will some lefties realize that she will do anything to just be president. It's obvious that Hillary sees the pursuit of the White House by means of the tireless upchucking of hollow, computer-generated horseshit as the ultimate man's game in Washington, and she wants to show she can play it with the big boys. So she's slinging twice as much crap, twice as much bullshit. What she fails to see is that, while she's playing the game right, the game is the problem, it's a crock of shit. It would have been nice if she'd had the courage to be different, which she incidentally already is, by default. Instead, she's choosing consciously to be just another lousy corporate politician one who'll deserve all the abuse she'll get for playing that same old tired game. - Matt Taibbi

Good thing there are some that are actually questioning her like Matt Stoller so does her '06 senate opponent Jonathan Tasini over at Huffingtonpost.

We have to get over the fact that she is a woman running for president she isn't even the first. That belongs to Victoria Claflin Woodhull . Another point to pander is that she is the media's candidate. She will be forced onto liberals to vote for her. Lets see the supporters for her in the media. At CBS she has Katie Couric who has hosted a fundraiser with Hillary before. Over at NBC there is Meredith Vaira. Did any one see the soft ball questions that she was asked? The New York Times favors her too. This is the same "liberal" NY Times that carried the propaganda Iraq lies by Judy Miller and decided NOT to publish the information that Bush was spying on you and me with no court warrants. Fox news backs her too. Rupert Murdoch knows what he is doing. Securing future businesses that Hillary might help build or destroy. ABC news has George Stephanopoulos who worked for her husband’s administration. At CNN there is Paul Begalla and James Carville who loyal to the core clintonistas who criticized Howard Dean.

Chris Bowers over at a Mydd has it right.

"There are two main reasons why James Carville does not like Howard Dean. The first is that Howard Dean does not trash other Democrats, and Carville prefers Democrats who throw their own party under the bus. The second is that he is a political consultant, and as such many of his friends have gotten rich off of commissions from television advertisements. As far as he is concerned, all donations to all Democratic committees exist so that he and his friends can get richer. Since Howard Dean is spending money on field organizers and grants to state parties, his friends tend to not get rich from the money the DNC raised. This is abhorrent to Carville, since Democratic Party committees exist to make him and his friends rich"


Lets remember it was James Carville who leaked voter fraud challengers to the White House in Ohio that Kerry was going to challenge. Why you ask? If Kerry lost it would clear the way for Hillary in '08. Carville says so in his own words.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio. So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.

The rest is history.

She has a strangle hold on the DNC for raising money for her campaign. Sucking all the money so that other candidates can't compete. Just look at the coverage she is getting. Even Murdoch is gaga over Hillary. Talk about sleeping with the enemy. I am not the only one that feels the same way.

Below I state reasons why Hillary should not be the nomination of the party and what she actually supports. She can't win and people doubt her, take a look. Plus with the explosion on the internet and blogs, scandals like thisand thiswill dominate the media landscape. Also taking campaign money from sweatshop factories doesn't sit well with me. Not to mention when Tom Delay is linked.

  1. She voted for and still supports strong the illegal, immoral and unjust war in Iraq. Some how without an ounce of guilt or clear judgment and she still STANDS by her Vote. Just like other so called "experts" pundits who keep being rewarded and invited back to media shows after supporting the war and saying it would have been a cake walk, the same goes for Hillary, she seems to gain some "experience" for sticking by her vote and not being swayed by the the so called far left of the party. Bullshit of the highest kind, I say.
  1. She wants YOUR rights to be taken away by voting and supporting the renewal of the(UN)Patriot Act.
  1. Supports Torture just like Lord Cheney and King George Bush. Supports the illegal NSA wire tapping, allowing the Bush junta to continue tapping your phones. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a good summary on the domestic spying scandal.
  1. She is financed and backed by global corporations and wall-street. Her health care plan is suspect to me since she has opened up to the health care industry. Just look at who gives her money. Besides wall-street is in her back pocket and she is getting money from foreign sources like Communist China and Saudi Arabia.
  1. There is a conflict of interest if it comes to stopping Communist China from invading and conquering democratic Taiwan. Any one remember the business man Johnny Chang. What is her answer to China's Military show case towards the world, particular with the US? She even supports censorship by the Communist Chinese government. Clinton supported most favored nation trade status despite concerns about China’s human rights record. Some more concerns with China.
  1. She will stab unions in the back and continue the war on the American worker started by Reagan, Bush and continued by Bill with the passage of NAFTA even though a MAJORITY of house democrats opposed it, by supporting outsourcing and not getting tough on companies that seek tax breaks by sending jobs overseas.

"156 of 258 Democrats opposed him[Bill Clinton in '93], Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur pointed out that Clinton is out of synch with what she calls the "real core of the Democratic Party" in the House. "I think he's the candidate of Wall Street," she said, "not Main Street." Kaptur predicted that the division will lead to an increase in independent voting and support for Ross Perot's United We Stand. "There are a lot of constituents out there who were abandoned," she said.

I still find it hard to believe that unions actually give in to NAFTA. She was a board member on Wal-Mart for six years. It wasn't until last year that she began having differences with Wal-Mart and returned money that they had dominated to her campaign. Hillary is not the the voice of conscience for the American worker. Is it a surprise to anyone that she is a strong supporter of free trade with China and other nations? David Sirota has a good take with her on the issue over here.

  1. She is a gun grabber and opposes my Constitutional right to defend myself. I know there are some "liberals' that disagree and are the majority on this site, but stop with trying to regulate how I should defend myself. In a free society I should be able to exercise my right to defend myself. Criminals don't obey laws, that’s why the are criminals in the first place. Gun ownership for self defense LOWERS crime. Check out some myths here and here. Just compare locations with the most anti-gun laws and pro-gun laws. Pro-gun laws generally have lower crime rates.

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. Source: National Center for Policy Analysis

At a time like this when the Bill of Rights and Constitution is being destroyed, the only way to defend ourselves from the tyranny of the government is to arm ourselves. Even bush is taking our guns away illegal. Just look at what happened during Hurricane Katrina.

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.- George Mason.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

  1. Hillary is AIPAC'S girl. Clinton has also approved of the Israeli West Bank barrier, which she views as a counter-terrorism protective measure. On November 13, 2005, she said that she supports its building, and that the onus is on the Palestinian Authority to fight terrorism. "This is not against the Palestinian people," Clinton said during a tour of a section of the wall being built around Jerusalem. "This is against the terrorists. I am tired and sick of being called anti-Jew, neo Nazi or a Jew hater for criticizing Israel's numerous human rights violations and opposing Israel and actually supporting US interests over Israel. How can we call Israel a democracy when it outlaws non Jews from marrying Jews? How about jailing and abusing Palestinian women and children. How can any elected public official in the house or senate still have the audacity to support this little terror state that time after time steals and sells US State and Military secrets and especially what Israel did when it attackedthe USS Liberty and blamed it on Egypt. Longer video with the actual crew members on board the USS Liberty during the attack by Israel can be seen here. We have to stand up against the what Israel is doing creates and a good example is by George Galloway.
  1. Will sell away national interests such as ports and highways to foreign owned companies. Just like Bill Clinton did when he sold the ports to the Communist Chinese during his administration. He actually allowed the Chinese to have a naval base on us soil even after their history of espionage towards the US. I was amazed at how little no one called her out on her bs when she said "planed to introduce legislation that would block Dubai Ports World or any other company owned by a foreign government from operating US ports". A couple of years too late Hillary. We have to stop selling away our ports and infrastructure.
  1. She voted for the amnesty bill for Illegal immigration. Another issue that I might disagree from most of you readers here. People who KNOWINGLY cross the border without the permission of Local, State, and Federal government should not be rewarded with US citizenship. The law is the law. I still find it hard to believe and amazed that there still people who think enforcing the laws that we have are called racists. Lou Dobbs is right on the money and progressives should stop calling him racist for pointing out the facts. Just because you want laws to be followed and oppose tax payer dollars going to law breakers doesn't make you a racist. Is that too much to understand and ask? I get steamingly angry when supposed "liberal" media outlets only talk about the so called benefits of illegal immigration and ignore the negative effects. Supporting illegal immigrants is very costly. A numbers look at Illegal immigration. The consequences are great if we just stand by and be strong armed by people who don't respect this country's laws and sovereignty. What is hard to understand requiring people who want to migrant here, obey and respect the laws of the land? Are the immigration laws racist?. Illegal immigration HURTS the middle class. If you come here illegally without permission from the U.S government and its citizenry, you are a CRIMINAL regardless of what you think. Obey the damn laws. Another note we have to start addressing the Reconquista and Azlan Movement that is supported not by the majority of Mexicans, but a militant few. It is nothing but bad news. Just take a look what these militant open border advocates do to when they see a American flag being raised. Who would be offended by the Stars and Stripes? This needs to be asked and I find it commonly that question is usually asked by conservatives when debating with liberals. This issue will be major factor in the coming election. Just look at Los Angeles. Hispanics are targeting blacks for just being black. They are ethnic cleansing blacks.

"A comprehensive study of hate crimes in Los Angeles County released by the University of Hawaii in 2000 concluded that while the vast majority of hate crimes nationwide are not committed by members of organized groups, Los Angeles County is a different story. Researchers found that in areas with high concentrations, or "clusters," of hate crimes, the perpetrators were typically members of Latino street gangs who were purposely targeting blacks.

Anti-black violence conducted by Latino gangs in Los Angeles has been ongoing for more than a decade. A 1995 Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) report about Latino gang activity in the Normandale Park neighborhood declared, "This gang has been involved in an ongoing program to eradicate Black citizens from the gang neighborhood." A 1996 LAPD report on gangs in east Los Angeles stated, "Local gangs will attack any Black person that comes into the city."

But while the Latino gangs' racial terror campaign is not new, gang experts and law enforcement authorities say the intensity and frequency of anti-black terrorism is now escalating, as the amount of turf in Los Angeles claimed by Latino gangs continues to increase rapidly. And, as more and more blacks leave inner-city L.A.

Anti-black violence conducted by Latino gangs in Los Angeles has been ongoing for more than a decade. A 1995 Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) report about Latino gang activity in the Normandale Park neighborhood declared, "This gang has been involved in an ongoing program to eradicate Black citizens from the gang neighborhood." A 1996 LAPD report on gangs in east Los Angeles stated, "Local gangs will attack any Black person that comes into the city". Source:


  1. She hasn't spoken out against the NAFTA Super highway that the will destroy our trucking industry and increase the loss of us national security, civil liberties and national sovereignty. All Americans should oppose the other NAFTA highway that is being built from South America to Canada. The NAFTA Super Corridor plan is ultimately to reduce the transportation costs of using cheap labor in China, South Korea and Indonesia to produce goods for American markets bypassing West Coast ports in the U.S. means bypassing U.S. union wages.

The NAFTA Super Corridor plan is ultimately to reduce the transportation costs of using cheap labor in China, South Korea and Indonesia to produce goods for American markets. Bypassing West Coast ports in the U.S. means bypassing U.S. union wages. Mexican port and rail transport are expected to keep the shipping costs low. Also, allowing free access to the U.S. to Mexican trucks means that the containers can be moved through the U.S. by Mexican nationals, again bypassing Teamster union wages and benefits typically paid U.S. truck drivers.

  1. Just like Joe Lieberman, she wants to dictate to me what movies I should watch and video games that I should play. Her and Liebernman introduced legislation that would do that. This is bad legislation based on bad myths and is unconstitutional. I am a avid gamer and don't want the government coming into territory where they have to set the boundaries instead of the consumer.

"For game designers, musicians and movie makers, the ratings systems already have put a stranglehold on creativity, expression and quality. Anyone who doubts this should watch for headlines about movie producers or game designers scrambling to obtain permissible PG-13, R or Teen ratings"

Unlike most industries, the Video game industry regulates itself extremely well. But since it is easy to say " Think of the children, do it for the children. Don't you want to take care of the children? You like children right?" bandwagon politicians jump on real quick. Again if parents are doing there job and interacting with their children, knowing what they watch, do and play, there would be no major problems. But when things go bad they blame gangsta rap, movies and TV. They blame everyone BUT themselves!!! Some of you may not really care about this issue due to demographics( I am 20 yr old male) but to me I do care about it since it is in realm of government censorship in what I see and play. Here is what’s at stake.

"Game content is constitutionally protected, and efforts to regulate the distribution of games and their content is dangerous, unwarranted, and an infringement on the free speech and artistic rights of game creators. Government does not regulate access to or sale of movies, books, and cable TV. There is no government mandate to show ID when seeing or buying an R-rated movie, and there is no reason to hold video games to higher scrutiny. These legislative actions on video games by politicians, many of whom don't even know how to play them, creates a double standard for this innovative medium. But if the attack on video games works, what's to stop elected officials from going after the other media we enjoy also? Government regulation based on games' content will stifle creativity, and will have a chilling effect on game publishers who may feel the need to dilute content due to the threat of government action and fines".

MIT professor Henry Jenkins does a good job debunking myths about videogames.

With '08 just around the corner, the party should be able to defeat any republican for access to the White house but it seems that the same people who like the status quo (DLC crowd) and dislike the net roots will do what ever they can to shut us and over grassroots movement down.

You can just see and feel it. The polls are showing that too. It's pretty clear though that Iraq is the one issue that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is seeking to avoid at all costs, which is why she's having her fundraisers put the hard sell on donors. She wants to suck up all the campaign money before Democratic base voters have a chance to consider the implications of her support for the war in Iraq. - Matt Stoller

This is what Ed Schultz says about her.

"Convincing Hillary Clinton and her arrogant handlers of that is a different battle in itself. We are known for connecting with the newsmakers as well as any talk show.

Many of you have requested hearing from Hillary on progressive talk especially The Ed Schultz Show. I want you to know our producer James Holm tirelessly works the contacts and has repeatedly tried to connect with Clinton's people. Cutting to the chase, Hillary's people treat us like dirt. We are constantly disregarded, told things that aren't true, and given speculation an interview might happen someday.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. This morning I watched Hillary Clinton tell CNN she is accessible. What? To the TV cameras yes, to the base of loyal listeners on progressive talk radio, absolutely not! Reaching over 2.5 million listeners who are engaged in changing the country I believe qualifies us for some attention. I realize Hillary is an international figure and star but this pattern of treatment to The Ed Schultz Show has been an on-going pattern which tells me all they care about is her mug on TV.

The conservatives have done wonders with audio continually talking to and solidifying their base. It's apparent to me radio is minor to the people surrounding this leading candidate. When Wendy and I see Hillary from time to time she is more than respectful, likeable, and seemingly interested in how we are doing. But when it comes to supplying any workable connection to helping progressive talk it all falls short".

Hillary tells us how much she cares about progressives on radio but we just don't get the love. I just thought as listeners you might want to know this.

I couldn't agree more. SNL had a great parody of her. If she thinks that she can pull the wool over our eyes and fool us, she has something else coming for her during the campaign season. Do you agree with me?

by Young Dem

Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 Presidential Election, China, concern troll (all tags)

Permalink | 85 comments

The New World Order: Bilderbergs

Posted Monday, 29 January 2007

“They are seven kings. Five have fallen, the one is, the other has not yet come.

When he comes, he must continue a little while.” [1]


The Bilderbergs – who are they and what do they do? An aura of mystique surrounds the name, casting shades of reflections of the power elite who supposedly rule the world. Presidents, royalty, prime ministers, global industrialists, and financial leaders from around the world are said to be members of the secrete organization that meets once a year to set the direction and course of international affairs, world events, and global policies.

The first Bilderberg conference was held at the Bilderberg Hotel in Osterbeek Holland in May 1954, from which it derives its name. Created as a secret and supportive adjunct of NATO and the Marshall plan of the 1940s, the raison d’etre behind the group was to promote post war trans-Atlantic cooperation between America and Europe. It has since evolved into much more.

Certain leading power-brokers on both sides of the Atlantic were of the opinion that Europe and America were not united in their global policies, and that a meeting of both the mind and spirit was needed to forge a more powerful international union whose final goal was world governance.

Unofficial and hence unreported discussions were deemed most prudent to foster a better understanding of the complex global forces affecting Western Civilization since the end of the war. From these meetings came forth the seeds that eventually grew into the geopolitical policies of the North Atlantic States (NAS).

Foot Prints In The Sand

The dominant signature of the meetings emphasized a globalist view that minimized national sovereignty in favor of a one world government or New World Order (NWO). Towards this end the United Nations (UN) was of prime importance as the anchor and central locus of power as the command center for international affairs.

Testimony of the power and influence of the Bilderberg Group is contained within the following quote taken from the Congressional Record of remarks in the United States House of Representatives:

"This unprecedented period of European cooperation is more than a product of simple nation-state diplomacy. One of the key institutions that has fostered unity and cooperation with the Atlantic Community beyond the old concepts has been the Bilderberg Group." [2]

The Ideal

The origin for European and American unification as a super-state can be traced back to a speech given in 1946 by one Joseph Retinger, at Chatham House, the meeting place of the European Round Table Group examined in earlier papers of this series.

During the war, Retinger was the secretary general of the Independent League for European Cooperation (ILEC). As such, he had contact with many world leaders who eventually became leading forces of the Bilderberg Group: the global power-brokers if you will. His following statement sums up the global and elite racist views that were the seed germ of one world government.

“The end of the period during which the white man spread his activities over the whole globe saw the Continent itself undergoing a process of internal disruption........ there are no big powers left in continental Europe....... [whose] inhabitants after all, represent the most valuable human element in the world.” [3]

Not long after his address, Retinger was invited by Averell Harriman, US ambassador to the United States, to drum up American support for global governance. It didn’t take much time or effort for Retinger to affect acceptance for an international corporate state to promote a capitalist system of elite collectivist control over world finance for self-profit.

“I found in America a unanimous approval for our ideas among financiers, businessmen and politicians. Mr. Leffingwell, senior partner in J. P. Morgan's [bank], Nelson and David Rockefeller, Alfred Sloan [chair of General Motors], Charles Hook, President of the American Rolling Mills Company, Sir William Wiseman, [British SIS and] partner in Kuhn Loeb [New York investment bank], George Franklin and especially my old friend Adolf Berle Jr. [CFR], were all in favor, and Berle agreed to lead the American section [of ILEC]. John Foster Dulles also agreed to help.” [4]

The aftermath of the war left many Nations weak and worn from the desolation of war: both in human terms of death and the resulting social disruption of society, as well as financial costs that placed additional strain on the social fabric already weakened and torn by the specter of death that surrounded all those who had survived to carry on the task of rebuilding that which was destroyed: the life works of their loved ones.

As connected as Retinger was, however, he could not form the group on his own without help. He turned to one of his most wealthy and powerful friends: Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Prince Bernhard was a major player in Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell Oil), as well as Société Générale de Belgique: a supranational global corporation. There is much more about the Prince that could be said, but we will suffice to say it takes a Prince to know a Prince. One of the previous electors of Hesse-Kassel comes to mind – during the 18th century.
The Ploy

Such overwhelming post-war devastation creates a gapping hole in the soul of society – resulting in the need for a reason to carry on: some kind of hope – any hope - that life can continue on as before. The resulting gestalt is fertile breeding grounds for supranational powers to step in and offer the reassurance that is so sorely sought after. A helping hand at any cost is easily accepted under such duress and hardship. History is rife with similar examples.

Springing up from the ground, as did the Spartoi warriors of the Ismenian Drakon’s teeth, came five supranational organizations and one hybrid offspring for world governance:

* United Nations (Roosevelt)
* The International Monetary Fund (Lord Keynes)
* The World Bank (Lord Keynes)
* The Marshall Plan (General Marshall)
* The North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO (Ernest Bevin)
* Bretton Woods Agreement (hybrid offspring)

To not follow in the cast set by the above international organizations would represent the taking on of powers equal to the trials of Hercules’s or Jason’s quest for the golden fleece. There is much more here then meets the eye. Trials and quests carry on until they are no more – or until those that carry them on cease to be. Dragon Slayers are a rare breed.

Who’s Who

The following is a limited list of some of the international power elite that attend the Bilderberg Group meetings. They have been filmed going and coming from the yearly meetings, as well as some being identified by eyewitness accounts by those at the meetings, as published in several major news papers.


* Guest at the 2003 Bilderberg Meeting included Carlos M. Collazo.

Richard N. Haass (2004), president, Council on Foreign Relations

* Guests at the 2004 Bilderberg Meeting included John Edwards, James Wolfensohn, Melinda Gates, and Mario Draghi.

* Guests at 2005 Bilderberg Meeting included Vernon Jordan and Mark Warner and may also have included, according to the Financial Times of May 2, Natan Sharansky and Bernard Kouchner.

* Guests at 2006 Bilderberg Meeting included Vernon Jordan, George Pataki, Richard Perle, Dennis Ross, and prominent Canadians Paul Desmarais, Frank McKenna, Heather Reisman and Globe and Mail publisher Philip Crawley, Mahmood Sariolghalam (Iran National University), Siv Jensen, leader of Norwegian political party Fremskrittspartiet, Johann Olav Koss, and chairman of Scandinavian Airlines Egil Mykleb

News Media

* Alexandre Adler, French conservative journalist (2003)
* Paul Gigot - Editor of the Editorial Page of The Wall Street Journal; 2003- Present
* Martin Wolf - Financial Times columnist
* Juan Luis Cebrián - Ex-director of El País Spanish journal, delegated advisor of PRISA
* Peter Jennings USA Anchor Man


* George Osborne(2006) - Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer 2004-Present
* Harald Norvik (2006), former CEO of Statoil.
* Josef Ackermann (2005), CEO of Deutsche Bank
* Daniel Vasella (2005), Chairman and CEO of Novartis
* David L. Aaron, Deputy National Security Advisor
* William J McDonough New York Federal Reserve
* Étienne Davignon, conference chairman in 2005
* William Luti, deputy undersecretary for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs
* Former Pentagon advisor Richard Perle


* Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, King of Sweden
* Juan Carlos I, King of Spain
* Queen Sofia of Spain, wife of Juan Carlos I, King of Spain
* Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
* Infanta Cristina, daughter of Juan Carlos I, King of Spain
* Philippe, Duke of Brabant, Crown Prince of Belgium

Heads of State

* Fredrik Reinfeldt, elected Prime Minister of Sweden, 2006 – Present
* Margaret Thatcher(1975), former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
* Jean Chrétien (2003), Canadian Prime Minister, 1993 - 2003
* Paul Martin (2003), Canadian Prime Minister, 2003 - 2006
* Stephen Harper (2003), Canadian Prime Minister, 2006 - Present
* Bill Clinton, (1991), US President, 1993 - 2001
* Tony Blair (1993), current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
* Kostas Karamanlis (2003), current Prime Minister of Greece
* Angela Merkel (2005), current Chancellor of Germany

Le crème de le crème as they say. The list is about as elite as it gets, although the very top or inner

echelon is not listed nor seen in public.

They remain in the shadows – away from the light of day. Darkness is their preferred habitat, to provide the cover they covet at any cost.

In their delusional mind, to be known is a sign of weakness – the same as darkness abhors the light.

Long Range Goals

The Free Trade Area of the Americas is to include the entire Western Hemisphere except for Cuba under Castro.

Once Castro is gone (which could be any day now according to reports of his ill health) the Free Trade Area would then evolve into an American Union similar to the European Union.

But that was back then, when the blueprints were first drawn up – now, instead of an American Union, the elite collectivists are talking and planning on a North American Union of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. See: SPP.Gov (click on link for detailed info).: S Home

An Asian-Pacific Union is to eventually emerge as the third super state region. See: Shanghai Cooperation Organization (click on link for details). The world would then be divided the into three supranational regions, providing the international elite easier governance (rule) and more control of banking and finance (profit).

Once the elite collectivists have it down to three regions, they will then seek two, and finally one: the ultimate manifestation of their one world government New World Order. One government and ONE CURRENCY – giving them complete monopoly over the entire globe.

The United Nations (UN) is the prototype model for the centralized institutional control of the one world government. In the God-Father’s words:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries.” [5]

Beginnings - Endings

As we have seen in earlier papers of this series, the idea of a New World Order goes back before World War I, even prior to the American and French Revolution. In other older and ancient forms it can be observed since the rule of Rome, Alexander The Great, and Genghis Kahn – all who tried to conquer and rule the world. It cannot be done and will never be done, but for some the lesson comes hard and long for some – but it comes nevertheless. Time is on its side.

Since the dawn of man there have always been those whose only desire was to rule the world. They willingly killed, raped, plundered, and placed into slavery any who stood in their way. The good must remain united and strong to carry on against these lost souls, to not only turn them back from their wayward path, to not only help the world’s progression, but to turn them back to face the light of day – so that night is no more. So has it been written.

The Aftermath

In the aftermath of World War I we saw the League of Nations and Round Table Groups spring up from the remnants of the war. Although these groups had an international flavor never before flaunted upon the world stage, they never realized their supposed goals of one world government or global rule.

Even the power elite find it hard to agree with one another on just what form the New World Order must take, and exactly who the leading alpha males at the top should be. The lust for power and the greed of profit runs deep, and are like a plague that knows no bounds – it spreads its way across the land – the abomination that walks the earth as the scourge of mankind, neither asking for, nor giving - any quarter.

The League of Nations and Round Table Groups sowed the seeds of that which was yet to come. But first to be visited upon the land was a great battle like none before: World War II. Once again the supposed war to end all wars. In thousands of years man has yet to learn that war cannot end war – only peace and good will ends wars; just as light dispels darkness.

The United States was the sole world power to emerge from the war. Europe had been devastated and much of it lay in ruin. The first task was to rebuild Western Europe and to create a North Atlantic alliance against the Soviet Union: commonly known as NATO. The Marshall plan was the means by which to rebuild Europe.

Internationalism or Totalitarianism

At the Bretton Woods meeting, the United States utilized its new position as the lone super power in the world – both militarily and monetarily. The U.S. was in possession of most of the world’s gold reserves, which at that time still backed most world currencies. It also had the largest industrial base and strongest economy of any nation on earth. The U.S. Dollar was the reserve currency of the world, which together with the international monetary fund and world bank, formed the basis of the global elite’s institutional mechanisms to foster the beginnings of a one world monetary system.

Although it appeared that the United States was leading the world, it was really the corporate military industrial complex within and without the U.S., together with the elite international financiers who owned most industries that was steering world policy. The United States had always been an isolationist country. It had to be dragged into World War II. So too its acceptance and membership into the entanglements of international institutions had to be had by stealth, much as the spider builds his web to trap his unwary host. This is a point most often misunderstood in the field of geopolitics and political science: the difference between the vehicle of power and the power that employs the vehicle, as a mode of transportation, to spread its force of will - across the land.

Nation states make war with one another – they have geographical boundaries that define one combatant from another. Often times more than one nation state will join with others against a common foe, be it a single nation or a group of nations. However, capitalists or international money changers know no national boundaries; their pursuit of profits scans the entire globe. This is an important distinction to remember and is often overlooked when discussing the geopolitics of world governance. There are Nation States, and there are supranational organizations of international capitalists - whose interests are not always one and the same. In the end it is the money changers who control the day.

High Priests of Globalization

With the advent of international institutions and transnational corporations, the idea of the nation state is becoming of less and less importance. It is similar to a group of children playing monopoly – why settle for one or two of the properties on the board when the entire board is offered for the taking?

At first this global interpenetration of nation states was between Europe and the United States. The rise of the European Union is most obvious in its design and purpose, both in its geographical zone of influence, as well as in its common currency – the Euro. It is zone number one on the map of the New World Order. The European Union is not in direct competition with the United States in the ways believed by most scholars or politicians. It is the prototype of that which is yet to come.

The resistance of Britain in accepting the Euro and membership within the European Union is a most interesting conundrum. This did not happen by accident but by design. The question remains: by what design? For what purpose? Usually, by following the money, the design and intent of those who pull the strings can be discerned. Along these lines runs Britain’s backing of the United States in attacking Iraq. All pieces of the mosaic.

The Dioscuri Twins

The two great Aryan Nations, twin stars of the constellation Gemini, are striding together across the world stage in support of one other. But is it the nations acting in concert – or the elite money changers within and behind not only both nations – but all nations? And for what purpose other than world dominance and supremacy? Transnational corporations and the elite collectivists who own them know no boundaries in the pursuit of profit.

It is a grave mistake to think that all, or even most, nation states within the common market seek to destroy one another in their competitive search for profit – refusing any type of cooperation between rival factions. Such is not the case, as the nation states are not the key players: the elite money changers that finance them are the dominant force.

The Bilderberg Group and other similar organizations are the joining together of the elite collectivists of the world, united in cooperation to form a one world government and New World Order that places the entire global marketplace under their control: a truly “common” market if you will. One that assures that the pickings will be easy. One hand washes the other: why bite the hand that feeds you?

“Rather than constituting an all-powerful secret Atlantic directorate, Bilderberg served, at best, as the environment for developing ideas in that direction, and secrecy was necessary for allowing the articulation of differences rather than for keeping clear-cut projects from public knowledge. In this sense Bilderberg functioned as the testing ground for new initiatives for Atlantic unity.” [6]

The Soviet Union’s Demise

Since the 1940’s, and in the aftermath of World War II, the United States has been regarded as the sole superpower in the world. This consensus is based on two points:

* The overwhelming superiority of U.S. military power

* The dominant role of the U.S. Dollar as the reserve currency of the world

With the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world was no longer bipolar but unipolar. A fascinating and telling question is what caused the collapse of Russia? Was it a direct military confrontation with the U.S. or any other nation? No it was not.

Then what or who took down the Soviet Union – a one time equal rival of the U.S. for world supremacy? What power is greater then the military power: the money power.

For awhile after WWII the Soviet Union was a major military threat to the United States, at one time surpassing the U.S. in troops and weapons systems. This was the reason for the cold war.

To fund its war machine Russia took on too much debt – enticed as they were by the international bankers and merchants of death to procure more and more weapons, while spending more and more money, which meant borrowing more and more money or credit. The money changers knew full well what they were doing as they lined their pockets with profit, and what the consequences would be. It was all part of their plan. If nothing else – they are not stupid.

It cost the money changers nothing to create the money to loan the Soviet Union as credit, allowing the bankers to collect the interest payments and to foreclose on any unpaid loans, enabling them to confiscate private property that was put up as collateral. A collectivists dream come true: tag sales of national scope and size.

Soon the Soviet Union was experiencing a monetary debt crisis. The ruble was devalued and many loans were in default. Government bonds ceased to be issued as the interest rates were over 150% and the government had no money to pay the interest with anyways. The Soviet Union had been taken down – by monetary, not military means.

American Hegemony

The question naturally arises: why didn’t the U.S. find itself in the same position as the Soviet Union? Had not the U.S. increased its budget and total cost procurements to stay equal with, if not ahead of Russia? – Yes it had.

So why didn’t the US experience a debt crisis as did Russa? Because the U.S. Dollar is the reserve currency of the world, which means that the United States is in a monetary and financial position unlike any other nation on earth. The US is able to create all the money it wants, and to then buy all the goods and services it wants from its foreign trade partners, paying them with paper fiat debt-money. Almost three quarters of world trade is done in dollars. Thus the world is dependent upon the US Dollar. This was the purpose behind the Bretton Woods Agreement. Remember – the bankers if nothing else are not stupid.

Foreign nations must do something with all the US Dollars they accumulate, and they do: they buy US Treasury Bonds, helping the US to retain it hegemony over the world’s monetary system. In other words the US exports inflation to the world – who then turn around and reinvest those very same dollars in US Treasury Bonds, basically subsidizing the largest debtor nation on earth – the United States.

Compact With The Devil

Most countries have to control their trade deficits, either that or face the destruction of their currency by devaluation and loss of purchasing power. The foundation of the US Dollar’s supremacy is its role as the petrodollar: oil is brought and paid for only in US Dollars, a compact made between OPEC and the United States. In return, the US agreed to militarily defend and provide weapons to OPEC. A compact made with the devil.

Every nation needs to get dollars to import and pay for oil, some more than others. This means that the majority of their trade is done with countries who use the dollar, especially the US. They must have, and thus seek out - US Dollars. Japan who is dependent on oil imports is a prime example. Japan needs to import oil. To pay for the oil Japan needs US Dollars. Thus Japan’s trade surplus with the United States. Another compact made with the devil.

National or International Policy

Most if not all analysts will concur that the above events and policies are the national policies of the United States and the reactions from similar nation states affected by the policies. It is a mistake to view world affairs and international policies as national in scope, as opposed to INTERNATIONAL.

As stated earlier – nations have BOUNDARIES and geographical limits. Nation states make war with one another or with groups of nation states. They do not go to war against the entire rest of the world besides themselves and or their allies.

The money power is greater than the military power, as the military war machine can only exist if there is money to pay for it. The money power is controlled by the international elite money changers who not only control central banks – they created central banking.

They also created the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, The United Nations, The Bretton Woods Accord, NATO, and the World Trade Organization, to name but a few of their progeny. As this series of papers has shown – the various secret and elite organizations that decide on all important global policies is made up of various political leaders, royalty, industrialists, and very important people from different NATION states. Collectively they are beyond the scope and influence of mere nations – even that of the United States.

Furthermore, the international money changers and their co-conspirators, who are captured by more then the pursuit and worship of Lucre, have not yet been mentioned or revealed as part of the elite cartel. That will come in due time.

“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men....

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” [7]

“The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.” [8]

“In a small Swiss city sits an international organization so obscure and secretive....Control of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most powerful and least visible men: the heads of 32 central banks, officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen.” [9]

The End of the Gold Reserve Standard

Another misunderstanding of the world power game is the conventional and mainstream theories espoused by academics, politicians, and the news media. It is not their fault – the international elite specialize in obfuscation, illusion, and delusion – besides the fact that they own all major world media outlets. The news is reported how they want it reported.

By 1971 gold was leaving the United States faster then water through a sieve. US Federal Gold Reserves had fallen precipitously. Foreign nations were demanding gold in payment to settle international trade accounts – according to the contractual obligations of the Bretton Woods Agreement, as signed by all the powers. The starch ally of the US, The Bank of England, even joined the French in demanding US gold for dollars. No honor amongst thieves.

The Nixon administration finally decided that enough was enough. All foreign accounts were defaulted on regarding payment in gold, such payment to be made with Federal Reserve Notes or paper fiat debt-money. There are those who contend that this break with the gold standard ushered in a new system of monetary policy controlled by private international banks. This was not a new system of control – it was a consolidation and strengthening of the preexisting system that the elite money changers had already established and put in placed. This was just a newer more powerful model: now they wielded even more power.

Once the gold standard fell by the wayside, the 1970’s witnessed a plethora of paper fiat credit, created and extended by the large international banks. One of the results of this boom in credit issuance was the oil crisis. Prices of oil went sky high. This was due to the fact that the OPEC oil Sheiks had figured out that they were being paid for their oil with US dollars that were continually losing purchasing power. Hence they wanted a greater quantity (higher prices or more units) of US dollars to make up for the loss of purchasing power (quality) of the money being exchanged for their oil. They were almost as smart as the bankers.

Intended Consequences

With the over issuance of the US dollar came the debasement and loss of purchasing power that always occurs with paper fiat monetary systems. In order to try to protect the falling dollar, Paul Volcker, the existing Chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time, raised interest rates to record levels to stem the dollar’s demise. Little is revealed of the ironic twist that Volcker had played in going off the gold standard. Easy come – easy go.

Record high interest rates played havoc with third world countries that had borrowed from the IMF and the World Bank. In the early 1980’s Mexico defaulted on its external debt. Thus began the third world debt crisis, the onus of which, is almost always placed on the shoulders of the debtor – when in truth the cause was the malinvestments and improper lending practices of the elite international banks that caused a false sense of prosperity, when in truth the world was inundated by debt and higher prices due to the loss of purchasing power of the medium of exchange – primarily the US dollar.

The international monetary fund performed according to the script written by the elite collectivists. They came in and mopped up what was left in the wake of the devastation; assuring that the loans would be paid off: how? – by the further extension of credit via bridge loans, all tied to Draconian measures of international control over the monetary, financial, and economic policies of individual nation states. Serfdom 21st century style.

This resulted in the intended consequence of the destruction of many national economic systems that then became the breeding ground for transnational corporations to come in and take advantage of the dire circumstances. Cheap labor was exploited, as was the construction of factories that were under much less stringent regulations and building costs than existed in the United States or Europe; hence they were much cheaper or “cost effective” to own and operate – at least for the elite collectivists. But what of the indigenous people? Did anyone care to ask them? Qui Bono?

The European Union & The Euro

Both the Euro and the European Union’s role in the global scheme of world power is generally misunderstood. Most often both are viewed as a DIRECT tool for global domination or hegemony. While this is true on one level – such is not the level that is espoused by most academics or politicians.

It must be remembered that the European Union and the Euro are the brainchild of the international elite, just as central banking and all international institutions are. They were created as the prototype or model of one world government and one world money. Hence the breakdown of national boundaries resulting in a zone of influence.

Likewise is the Shanghai Organization zone, and the North Atlantic Alliance zone. All three result in the reduction of nationalism in favor of internationalism. The individual citizen is at the bottom of the food chain, when in fact they are sovereign and come before both nations and supranational zones of governance.

People come first; nations second; and international organizations last. All forms of government are for the people, by the people, and of the people. Governments receive their granted powers from the people, to serve the people, and to protect their god given and unalienable rights. So it is written. So it will be. So it is. Until night is no more.

“The beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth,

and is of the seven; and he goes to destruction.” [10]

Come visit our new website: Honest Money Gold & Silver Report
And read the Open Letter to Congress

[1] Revelations 17:10

[2] Congressional Record of remarks in the United States House of Representatives

[3] Retinger 1946, p. 7

[4] Pomian 1972, p. 212

[5] Attributed to David Rockefeller at the June 1991 Bilderberger meeting Baden, Germany

[6] Van der Pijl p. 183

[7] Woodrow Wilson - In The New Freedom (1913)

[8] Prof. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope

[9] Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, August 5, 1995

[10] Revelations 17:11

-- Posted Monday, 29 January 2007