Celebrating Un-President’s Day: Why I Will Not Vote For A President In 2008 By Carolyn Baker

Dandelion Salad

By Carolyn Baker
Speaking Truth to Power
Thursday, 14 February 2008

Four years ago, I wrote “Why I Will Not Vote In 2004” for which a number of readers thanked me profusely while another segment of readers sent scathing emails questioning how I could be so cynical and unpatriotic.

My intent in writing that article was not cynicism but honest questioning and exposure of what the voting process in this nation has become in recent years. It was authentic and sprang from genuine issues I had at the time regarding the wisdom of voting in a federal election. Since then, my skepticism of the integrity of the electronic voting machine process has deepened exponentially. And since then, Bev Harris of Black Box Voting produced an HBO documentary “Hacking Democracy” which exposes the jaw-dropping abuses of the electronic voting system and calls into question the veracity of any outcomes produced by it.

In fact, as recently as the New Hampshire primary, 2008, Black Box Voting and others have illumined spurious results in electronic voting in that state. Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis painstakingly researched the 2004 election and concluded in 2005 that, “The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.” In 2007, Wasserman shared his irrefutable confirmation of a stolen 2004 election in an exclusive interview on Democracy Now.

As I’ve frequently stated, I will never again vote in an election where I cannot use a paper ballot. For me to do otherwise, I believe, is to engage in a shell game of smoke and mirrors to which I will not sacrifice the preciousness of my right to vote in a so-called democratic republic.

As for my 2004 article, the world is remarkably different than it was then, and so am I. A larger, bleaker picture has emerged since then-one which for me calls into question the very process of selecting and electing candidates in the context of empire-in a culture of fascism, genocide, greed, corruption, and ecoside. It is that larger scenario that this article addresses.


FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


$700 bribe buys access to voting machines (video)

Hacking Democracy (must see videos; 2006)

Seriously, it’s time to not vote in the presidential election by Lo

America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version (video)

The Mother of All Rip-offs “Get Ready For A Real Hosing” By Mike Whitney (+ Daily Show vid)

Carolyn Baker Reviews “The Final Empire” By William Kotke

Carolyn Baker Reviews “The Final Empire” Part 2 By William Kotke

The Bilderberg Group: Rulers of the World (must listen audio link; Daniel Estulin)

Who Runs The World And Why You Need To Know Immediately By Carolyn Baker (updated)

Happy Valentine’s Day from Elizabeth Kucinich (video)

Dandelion Salad


Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod



Freedom Rider: Democrats Target Kucinich for Defeat By Margaret Kimberley

More on the Mysterious Reports of Threats to Kucinich By David Swanson

Contribute to Kucinich for Congress


Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Mr Bush You Are A Fascist!

Dandelion Salad


February 14, 2008
MSNBC Keith Olbermann

Vodpod videos no longer available. from dandelionsalad.wordp posted with vodpod



Olbermann: A Valentine… + Water Slide + Worst

Congress moves toward expanding government spying, with immunity for telecoms

Senate Approves Surveillance Bill, Preserves Telecom Immunity

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: FISA (video)

Ralph Nader: The Road to Corporate Fascism (must-see video)

Naomi Wolf Celebrated Author of “The End of America” (must-see video)

The Economic Reality Check Machine by The Other Katherine Harris

The Other Katherine Harris

by The Other Katherine Harris

Featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Other Katherine Harris’s blog
Feb. 14, 2008

The Economic Reality Check Machine

Remember what you paid for your first car, your first house, a year’s college tuition or whatever? At Measuring Worth, you can find out in a few seconds what it would cost you now by using their “Purchasing Power of Money in the United States from 1774 to 2007” calculator.

Prepare to be amazed by what you’ll learn. My 1969 Opel, $2,300 when new, would have cost almost exactly $10,000 more last year ($12,278.23). Fortunately, my parents could afford to buy it for me more easily than I realized, because their modest annual income (under $20,000) represented more than $100,000 in today’s dollars. Their purchasing power was already on the decline, though; it fell by an average of $5,000 dollars yearly between 1965 and 1970. Even with inflation jolting the budget dramatically, they remained comfortably in the middle class. I was even on the lower rungs of it, when I got my first “real” job in 1975. Pulling in $9,000 a year wasn’t bad then (especially for a young woman); in fact, it represented almost $35,000 in today’s money — and 10 years later, my $25,000 spent like today’s $48,000.

Through the ’70s and 80’s, money kept losing value steeply, but far worse was the fact that pay stagnation set in. And both trends have continued, with all meaningful gains from increased productivity going to the richest for the past 30 years and actual declines in compensation at the lowest end.

Of course you don’t need me to tell you there are plenty of young people (and others) working now for 1985 wages — and that a household with only one earner is barely scraping by — but the picture of what we’ve lost becomes much more vivid than the usual generalities, when you run calculations based on figures from the reality of your own life in the past. I recommend it.

Ecuador: Rumble in the Jungle (videos; Palast)

Dandelion Salad

February 14, 2008

Investigative Journalist Greg Palast files this report from the rainforests of Ecuador, where an indigenous tribe is suing Chevron for $12 billion for contaminating the Amazon. We also play part of Palast’s interview with Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa.

Continue reading

Latin America’s Changing Mosaic by James Petras

Dandelion Salad

by James Petras
Global Research, February 14, 2008

Movements in Flux and Center-Left Governments in Power

In contrast to North America and Europe, in Latin America political regimes, social movements and ideologies are in constant flux. Within a period of a few years, the political pendulum can swing from a seemingly radical leftist wave, to center-left and even rightwing ascendancy1. Likewise major social movements emerge, expand from local or regional power bases to significant actors on the national political scene, play a major role in dispatching right-wing regimes, support and even enter governmental coalitions and then decline, especially if they fail to achieve any of the minimum demands of their supporters.2

Despite this complex mosaic of relatively abrupt changes and shifts in political power, social configurations and ideological direction, many North American, European and Latin American writers, commentators, intellectuals and journalists are prone to sweeping generalizations covering the entire region and broad time spans, reflecting in many cases, limited experiences and time periods, which have largely become out of date.3 In most cases, these generalizations are poorly documented, impressionistic and lacking any empirical, historical or analytical depth.

In recent years, roughly from the beginning of the 21st century to the end of 2007 (and continuing) some of the most lauded intellectuals of North America continued to describe Latin America as a hothouse for radical change, the home of the world’s most dynamic social movements, and undergoing leftist-led social transformation.4 Several immediate and transparent objections arise.

In the first place “Latin America” as a whole did not experience radical social movements over the period in question. In fact after 2003, in most countries where significant social movements existed, there was a sharp decline in movement activity, membership and social power. A cursory view of Argentina’s unemployed workers movement and factory occupations confirms this observation, as does the experience in Ecuador with CONAIE (the Indian movement).5

Secondly, most of Central America, the Caribbean and Pacific rim countries of South America never experienced a leftist government –not Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Peru, Ecuador (up till 2007), Haiti (since 1991) or the rest of the Caribbean island countries.

Thirdly none of the social movements, even the largest and most influential, succeeded in imposing their programs on any regime in the region, despite, in some cases, playing a major role in ousting right-wing incumbents.

Fourthly, none of the self-styled ‘radical’ or center-left regimes attempted any consequential structural changes, despite having won elections in some cases by substantial majorities and having the backing of trade unions, social movements, and Indian organizations. With the exception of Venezuela, no center-left or centrist regime reversed the corrupt privatizations of the previous rightist neo-liberal regimes, no measures were taken to redistribute land, income or reduce inequalities and regressive taxes.

The singular fact about Latin America is that, despite a number of massive popular upheavals, several political regime changes and the sometime ascendancy of mass social movements in some countries, the continuity of property relations remains intact. In fact the dominant tendency is to greater concentrations of property, the continued prosperity and increased profits of largely foreign-owned giant agro-mineral export enterprises, the continuation of the class structure and an increase in socio-economic inequalities.6 These regressive tendencies mark this period of supposedly ascendant social movements.

Once again intellectuals, particularly on the left, have succumbed to the rhetoric of social change, to symbolic acts, which are structurally inconsequential, to cultural identities rather than material interests and to the fatal attraction of close proximity to the centers of power.7 Not infrequently part of the strategies of legitimizing the center-left regimes is to invite intellectual notables to their inaugurations and other visible public ceremonies, flattering and inflating the ceremonial importance of these intellectuals (organizing ‘consultations’, special interviews and other promotional activities) while securing favorable articles, books and other propaganda useful in obtaining the acquiescence of opinion leaders in mass organizations.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

House GOP’ers Walk Out Of Contempt Vote + What Conyers Told the Rules Committee Re Contempt + Bono (vids)

Dandelion Salad


February 14, 2008

Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod



What Conyers Told the Rules Committee Re Contempt

After Downing Street
February 14, 2008

February 13, 2008 — (Washington, DC) – Today, House Judiciary Committee chairman testified before the House Committee on Rules in support of statutory contempt and civil litigating authority resolutions against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. The full text of his statement is below:

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Drier, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on two related resolutions: 1) H. Res. 979, the Judiciary Committee’s resolution recommending that the House find White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the committee, and 2) H. Res. 980, a privileged resolution I introduced today authorizing the committee to initiate or intervene in civil judicial proceedings to enforce those subpoenas.




Democrats Pass Contempt, Republicans Leave the Room

The Corpse Wiggles: Live Blogging Congress (Six Months Late) Voting on Contempt for Two of the Many
By David Swanson
After Downing Street

I know a lot of you may hold Congress in contempt, but on Thursday Congress voted to hold someone else in contempt. Here’s what happened:

Get your pro-contempt phone calls in ASAP.

10:07 Rep. Earl Blumenauer is denouncing Bush-Cheney proposal to slash funding for public broadcasting, which he says will deny public broadcasting to rural areas.

10:08 Rep. Kay Granger is pushing for quick passage of the bill to grant immunity to corporate criminals and a White House that engage in unconstitutional and illegal spying.

10:10 A Congressman C-Span does not identify says more people are killed by gun violence in the US than in Iraq.

10:12 Rep. Peter Hoekstra says BE AFRAID of Islamofascists NOW!! And quickly pass a bill to grant immunity to corporate criminals and a White House that engage in unconstitutional and illegal spying.

10:13 A Congressman C-Span does not identify is talking about deaths (90,000 per year) from infections in hospitals.

10:14 Rep Ted Poe says BE AFRAID OF ORGANIZED MEXICAN ILLEGAL TERRORIST KIDNAPPERS!! (C-span always identifies these Republican screamers.)

10:15 Rep ? says we MUST TODAY quickly pass the Senate bill to grant immunity to corporate criminals and a White House that engage in unconstitutional and illegal spying.

10:16 Rep ? says BE AFRAID OF RADICAL TERRORISTS and quickly pass the Senate bill to grant immunity to corporate criminals and a White House that engage in unconstitutional and illegal spying.

11:17 We’re back to the Lantos service where Bono is singing “All You Need Is Love.”

Bono Remembers the Honorable Tom Lantos


Bono sings “All You Need Is Love” at a memorial in the US Capitol for Chairman Tom Lantos, who passed away on Monday. Bono sings the song on behalf of Tom for his wife and partner in the pursuit of peace and justice, Annette Lantos.


12:01 After six months and all morning, the House will now debate for 1 hour the two resolutions, one to hold Miers and Bolten in contempt, the other to authorize the Judiciary Committee to go to court in an attempt to enforce the contempt citations (without of course using the only appropriate measure available, namely impeachment of the president).

Louise Slaughter opens the debate with concern for precedent for future presidents. She makes clear this is about the president and bogus claims of executive privilege. She also addresses fear of losing in the courts by suggesting that if that occurs, Congress can pass a law to fix the process. That’s actually debatable, I think, and not just because Bush would veto or signing-statement or ignore any such fix.

Rep. Slaughter – Contempt for Miers and Bolten


The House debates H.Res. 982, which provides for the adoption of H.Res. 979, recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, and Joshua Bolten, the White House Chief of Staff, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee. These subpoenas were issued as part of the Committee’s investigation into the firings of a number of United States Attorneys and matters concerning the politicization of the Justice Department. This resolution also provides for adoption of H.Res. 980 – Authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas. Rep. Louise Slaughter speaks in favor.

12:06 Rep Diaz-Balart is whining about having to leave Lantos’ funeral early.

12:07 Now he’s complaining that no debate is being allowed on each contempt resolution (other than the debate on the “Rule” that he is now engaged in and wasting his alloted time in). He’s right that the House should debate each contempt citation. The Democrats always, ALWAYS back away from a fight.

12:09 Bizarrely Diaz-Balart argues against contempt because it could lose in court and that would shift power from Congress to the White House. (And what would refusing to try accomplish other than the same result?)

12:11 Diaz-Ballart also wants to know why this is now an emergency after 8 months, and is shifting the topic (despite his whining about not getting a chance to debate) to the urgent need to grant retroactive immunity to violators of FISA and the 4th Amendment. He’s going on and on, failing to debate what he complains he has no opportunity to debate. This sort of transparent bluff ALWAYS fools the Democrats. This is bad news for today’s vote.

12:14 John Conyers submits into the record today’s New York Times editorial. He says he’s negotiated for 8 months. He doesn’t say that negotiation has been with Pelosi. He says this is about whether the American public can trust that its laws are impartially enforced by the US Justice Department. Some, Conyers says, think the stakes are so high that Congress should not risk losing. But, says Conyers, if we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be ignored, then we’ve already lost. (Of course that loss is assured by Conyers’ refusal to begin impeachment. Conyers also encourages Republicans who claim to be concerned about the powers of Congress to contact the White House Counsel’s office, which – Conyers says – only offered him a process with no on-the-record testimony.

Conyers on Contempt of Congress Vote



FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Freedom Rider: Democrats Target Kucinich for Defeat By Margaret Kimberley

Dandelion Salad

By Margaret Kimberley
After Downing Street
Black Agenda Report
Wednesday, 13 February 2008

The corporate rulers of the United States are determined to have their revenge against Dennis Kucinich, the heroic Ohio congressman who held high the progressive banner in the last two Democratic presidential primary seasons. Not content with having banned Kucinich from a succession of debates and erased his name and platform from the daily media discourse – finally forcing him to withdraw for lack of funds – corporate Democrats now conspire to oust him from his Cleveland congressional seat. Kucinich has been targeted by the same forces, and for the same fate as befell Georgia’s Cynthia McKinney and Alabama’s Earl Hilliard: exile from the Big Business-infested Democratic Party.

Freedom Rider: Democrats Target Kucinich for Defeat Continue reading

Imposing the New World Order by Stephen Lendman

Dandelion Salad

by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, February 14, 2008

Review of F. William Engdahl’s “A Century of War” (Part II)

Part II continues the story of “A Century in War” in Part I. It’s breathtaking in scope and content, and a shocking and essential history of geopolitics and the strategic importance of oil. Part I covered events from the late 19th century through the end of the 1960s. Part II completes the story to the present era under George Bush.

Running the World Economy in Reverse: Who Made the 1970s Oil Shocks?

In 1969, the US was in recession, interest rates were cut, dollars flowed abroad, and the money supply expanded. In addition, in May 1971, America recorded its first monthly trade deficit that triggered a panic US dollar sell-off.

Things were desperate, gold reserves were one-quarter of official liabilities, and Nixon shocked the world on August 15. He unilaterally imposed a 90 day wage and price freeze, a 10% import surcharge, and most importantly closed the gold window, suspended dollar convertibility into the metal, and shredded the Bretton Woods core provision. He also devalued the dollar by 8%, far less than what US allies wanted.

By this action, Nixon “pulled the plug on the world economy” and set off a series of events that shook it. Further deterioration followed with massive capital flight to Europe and Japan. It forced Nixon to act again on February 12, 1973. He announced a further 10% devaluation, major world currencies began a process called a “managed float,” and world instability was the worst seen since the 1930s.

Unknown was the reason behind the August, 1971 strategy. It was to buy time before initiating a bold new monetary “paradigm shift” – to revive a strong dollar and US world power with it. In May 1973, the scheme was hatched – to initiate a “colossal assault” on world industrial growth through a 400% increase in oil prices. In addition, the resulting petrodollar flood had to be managed. A global oil embargo was the scheme to rocket up its price and create an equally great demand for dollars.

Kissinger’s Yom Kippur war began it when Egypt and Syria invaded Israel on October 6, 1973. It wasn’t by accident as Washington and London carefully orchestrated the conflict while Kissinger controlled Israel’s response. An oil embargo followed, OPEC prices skyrocketed 400% overnight, panic ensued, Arab oil producers were scapegoated, and the key part of the scheme took shape. It was for much of the windfall oil revenue (mainly Saudi, the world’s largest producer) to be recycled into US investments.

Following a Tehran January 1, 1974 meeting, a second price increase doubled the price of oil for even more recycling. The net effect – the worst American and European economic crisis since the 1930s with bankruptcies, unemployment, and in the US, a bonus of stagflation. The fallout was horrific. It brought down most European governments but its effects on developing states were devastating. Nixon as well got caught in the “Watergate affair” that benefitted Henry Kissinger hugely. He became de facto president throughout the period while his boss battled to survive and lost. For Big Oil and major US and London banks, it was even sweeter. They profited handsomely.

Other issues were at stake as well, one of which was potentially cheaper nuclear electricity as an alternative energy source. By the early 1970s, it was viewed favorably, and European governments favored building 160 to 200 nuclear plants by 1985. For the first time, America’s nuclear export market was threatened as well as Big Oil’s overall energy dominance. It got Anglo-American think tanks and journals to launch an “awesome propaganda offensive” to ensure the oil shock strategy’s success. The scheme was an “Anglo-American ecology agenda” (strongly anti-nuclear) that became “one of the most successful frauds in history.”

A second Malthusian plot was also hatched through a classified Kissinger April 1974 memo. It was a secret project called National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) that called for drastic global population reduction. It reasoned that many developing nations are resource rich and vital to US growth. If Third World populations grow too fast, their domestic demand will as well, and that will pressure price rises for their goods. Curbing population growth was the counter strategy. It’s also self-defeating along with horrific fallout for targeted countries.

Europe, Japan and a Response to the Oil Shock

By late 1975, industrial countries began recovering but not developing ones. The oil shock was crushing and prevented their ability to finance industrial and agricultural growth and the hopes of their people for a better life. Perversely, it was also at a time the worst global drought in decades hit Africa, South America and parts of Asia especially hard. The fourfold increase in oil prices exacerbated conditions and increased developing states’ current account deficits sevenfold by 1976. They halted internal development to preserve revenue for debt service and to buy oil. Conditions also let foreign banks and later the IMF provide loans that became an onerous debt bondage cycle.

At the same time in 1974, 70% of surplus OPEC revenues were recycled abroad into equities, bonds, real estate and other investments as part of an exclusive OPEC decision to accept only US dollars for oil. It forced world nations to buy enormous amounts of dollars and do it when the currency was weak. This effectively replaced the gold standard with a “highly unstable (petrodollar) exchange system.” Washington and New York banks planned to control it and thus benefit from artificially inflated oil prices.

The scheme transformed the world economy and began an unprecedented transfer of wealth to an elite minority. Engdahl called it “a perverse variation on the old mafia ‘protection racket’ game.” Third World agricultural and industrial development suffered so a select few could prosper. It sent shock waves through the developing world and got a Colombo, Sri Lanka gathering to confront it.

Officials from 85 Non-Aligned Nations met in the Sri Lankan capital in August, 1976 and produced a document unlike any others by developing states post-war. Its theme was “A fair and just economic development, and its contents stated that “economic problems have become the most difficult aspect of international relations (and) developing countries have become the victim(s) of this worldwide crisis.” Steps were proposed to address it, and they called for a “fundamental reorganization of the international trade system to improve” its terms. They also wanted the international monetary system overhauled and the “explosive issue” of foreign debt raised for the first time.

The proposal was then presented at the annual UN General Assembly meeting in New York. It was a “political bombshell,” and financial markets reacted sending bank shares and the dollar lower. The fear was a potential alliance between key oil producing states and continental Europe and Japan. If in place, it could challenge Anglo-American dominance, had to be confronted, and Henry Kissinger got the job with “the full power and force of the US government.” He warned EEC foreign ministers and disrupted any efforts they were considering to ally with OPEC and the non-aligned group.

Coordinating with Britain, he also forced key non-aligned nation strategists out of office within months of their declaration. The threat was thwarted and leading New York and London banks took full advantage. They turned on the spigot and increased lending to developing nations under draconian IMF terms.

Down but not out, North-South cooperation resurfaced in new ways. In late 1975, Brazil contracted with Germany to build a nuclear power plant complex. A similar deal was made with France for an experimental fast breeder reactor. Mexico as well decided to go nuclear for part of its electricity to conserve oil and so did Pakistan and Iran. The Shah’s oil revenues were substantial, and his idea was “to realize an old dream” – to create a modern energy infrastructure, built around nuclear power generation, that would transform the entire Middle East’s power needs. In 1978, Iran had the world’s fourth largest nuclear program, the largest among developing states, and the plan was for 20 new reactors by 1995.

The idea was simple – to diversify from Iran’s dependence on oil and weaken Washington and London’s pressure to recycle petrodollars. Also involved was investing in leading European companies to ally with the continent. Washington was alarmed and tried to block the plan but failed. Nonetheless, the Carter administration continued Kissinger’s strategy behind a phony “human rights” mask. In reality, the game was unchanged – limit Third World growth and maintain dollar hegemony. It failed miserably but threats to dollar dominance were stalled for a time.

They resurfaced in June, 1978 on the initiative of France and Germany. Responding to policy disagreements and a fluctuating dollar, they took steps to create a European currency zone and proposed Phase I of the European Monetary System (EMS) under which central banks of EEC countries agreed to stabilize their currencies relative to each other. EMS became operational in 1979 with notable positive results. This worried Washington and London as a threat to petrodollar supremacy, Britain refused to be an EMS partner, and Carter was unable to dissuade Germany from pursuing a nuclear option. The situation required drastic action.

It began in November 1978 with a White House Iran task force that recommended Washington end support for the Shah and replace him with Ayatollah Khomeini, then living in France. It would be by the same type coup that overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 along with broader aims that again are in play in the region.

Key then (and now) was to balkanize the Middle East along tribal and religious lines – a simple divide and conquer strategy that worked in the 1990s Balkan wars. The aim was to create an “Arc of Crisis” that would spread to Central Asia and the Soviet Union. Another 1978 event highlighted the urgency. At the time, the Shah was negotiating a 25-year oil agreement with British Petroleum (BP), but talks broke down in October. BP demanded exclusive rights to future Iranian output but refused to guarantee oil purchases. The Shah balked and was on the verge of independently seeking new buyers with eager ones lined up in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.

Washington and London were alarmed and acted. They implemented destabilization plans, starting with cutting Iranian oil purchases. Economic pressures followed, and trained US and UK agitators exacerbated them by fanning religious discontent and overall turmoil. Oil strikes as well were used. They crippled production and made things worse. American security advisors recommended Iran’s Savak secret police use repressive tactics to maximize antipathy to the Shah. The Carter administration cynically protested human rights abuses, and BBC correspondents exaggerated anti-Shah protests to rev up hysteria against him. At the same time, it gave Khomeini an open platform to speak and prevented the Shah from replying.

Things came to a head in January, 1979 when he fled the country, and Khomeini returned to Tehran and proclaimed a theocratic state. Chaos was unleashed, and by May the new regime cancelled plans for further nuclear reactor development. At the same time, Iran’s oil exports were cut off, and the Saudis inexplicably cut their own in January. Spot prices skyrocketed, and a second oil shock ensued that was as deviously conceived as the first one. Then it got worse. In October, newly appointed Fed Chairman Paul Volker unleashed a new scheme that turned calamity into catastrophe by design.

It was a radical new monetary policy on the pretext of “squeezing inflation out of the system.” In fact, it was made-in-Washington fraud to preserve dollar hegemony, make it the world’s most sought currency, and crush industrial growth to let political and financial power prop up dollar strength. Volker succeeded by raising interest rates from 10% to 16% and finally 20% in weeks. World policy makers were stunned, economies plunged into the deepest recession since the 1930s, and the dollar began an extraordinary five year ascent.

The combined effect of oil and Volker shocks took “the bloom off the nuclear rose” and ended its threat to Anglo-American oil supremacy. And if more was needed it came on March 28, 1979 in the middle of Pennsylvania at a place called Three Mile Island. Conveniently, at the same time The China Syndrome was released that fictionalized the ongoing event. The combined effect was public hysteria, and later investigation revealed critical valves had illegally been closed. In addition, FEMA controlled all news to create panic. The scheme worked, and Anglo-American supremacy was reasserted over the industrial and financial world. Nothing is stable forever, however, and within a decade new rumblings would be felt.

Imposing the New World Order

The combined effects of two oil shocks and resulting inflation created a new US “landed aristocracy” while the vast majority of Americans saw their living standards sink. It was the same type scheme Margaret Thatcher imposed on Britain when she declared “there is no alternative.” Preaching free market hokum, she claimed deficit spending was the culprit, not two oil shocks causing 18% UK inflation. Her remedy – kill the patient to save it by cutting the money supply and government spending while sharply hiking interest rates to 17% in weeks, thereby causing depression she called the “Thatcher revolution.” Engdahl had another view saying: “Never in modern history had an industrialized nation undergone such (a counterproductive) shock” in so short a time, except in wartime emergency. Thatcher crushed the economy by design the way Volker did in America.

At the time, Britain’s problem wasn’t government ownership. It was lack of investment in public infrastructure, in educating a skilled work force, and in enough scientific research and development. Government isn’t the problem. Misguided policy is, and Thatcher and Volker excelled at it with one mutual aim – benefit their banks and Big Oil interests by cutting taxes and spending, reducing social services, privatizing and deregulating business, and breaking the back of organized labor in their brave new world order.

President Carter knew nothing about finance and economics and was duped into signing an “extraordinary piece of legislation” – the Depository Institutions Deregulation Monetary Control Act of 1980. It let the Fed impose reserve requirements on banks and be able to choke off credit to them. It also phased out interest rate ceilings banks could charge customers. Reagan continued the policies and was bamboozled by Chicago School ideologues like Milton Friedman. Engdahl called his radical monetarism “one of the most cruel economic frauds ever perpetrated.” It was that and more because of all the human wreckage it caused.

It led to the Third World debt crisis and its horrific fallout. It willfully immiserated millions of people, and events came to a head in the summer of 1982 with debtor states struggling to repay. Their burden was too onerous, and Reagan and Thatcher planned an example of what happens when nonpayment is an option. The Malvinas (or Falkland) archipelago was the targeted choice. It’s off Argentina’s coast but was hardly a reason for war. The issue wasn’t Argentina’s sovereignty. It was to enforce the principle that Third World debts must be paid by a “new form of 19th century gunboat diplomacy.” Two-thirds of Britain’s fleet was dispatched, a shooting war ensued, and Argentina became a test case.

Reagan backed Thatcher, and it soured relations with Latin American states like Mexico that also became a target. President Jose Lopez Portillo favored a modernization and industrialization policy and planned to use his oil revenue to implement it. The prospect of a strong Mexico was intolerable, Washington had other ideas, and a scheme was hatched to sabotage the plan by demanding rigid repayment of Mexican debt at exorbitant rates.

It began with an orchestrated run on the peso in the fall of 1981. Claims of an impending devaluation followed, and stories were planted of impending capital flight. An unavoidable austerity program followed, and the Portillo government cracked under pressure. It devalued the peso 30%, Mexican industry was devastated, many businesses were bankrupted, industrial production was cut and so were living standards for the majority of the people under conditions of orchestrated chaos.

Mexico effectively became insolvent at a time the US was in deep recession. Nonetheless, the Reagan administration hatched a plan to solve the debt crisis and save New York banks. Ignoring the root cause of the crisis, Secretary of State George Schultz offered IMF medicine combined with stimulating US consumer purchases as a way to increase Third World exports.

It would be “the most costly recovery in world history (and what followed) was almost beyond belief.” Lopez Portillo failed to rally Latin American support, and his term expired two months later. US officials then blackmailed Brazil and Argentina to back down, and debtor countries had to accept IMF terms that became “the most concerted organized looting operation in modern history,” far exceeding the worst of Versailles.

New York and London banks profited hugely the way they do today. First, they “socialize(d) their debt crisis” by getting unprecedented international repayment support. Working through governments and the IMF, they spun off their debt to taxpayers, privatized gains for themselves, and pummeled debtor countries by structural adjustment looting.

That was Step One. Next came Step Two – restructuring debtor nations’ repayment schedules that included onerous interest on top of oppressive principal. It caused mounting debt no matter how much was paid in an unending looting daisy chain still in play today and bigger than ever.

Back in the 1980s, here are the numbers. Between 1980 and 1986, 109 debtor countries were charged $326 billion in interest. They paid an additional $332 billion in principal for a total of $658 billion on original debt of $430 billion. In spite of it, in 1986 they still owed $882 billion, an impossible debt trap, and Engdahl attributed it to “the wonders of compound interest and floating rates” with a little gunboat diplomacy thrown in. Only one way out was possible – surrender economic sovereignty and valued raw materials, or else. Capital flight in the tens of billions followed, and it became a profit-making bonanza for major US banks.

In the 1980s, Americans also suffered. Reaganomics victimized them by structuring big gains for banks, oil and defense giants while ignoring the greater good and long-term economic health. The plan was nonsensical and built around the largest post-war tax cut until the combined three George Bush ones (with another coming) may have topped it. They did in nominal dollars, but Reagan’s was much bigger as a percent of GDP in an economy half today’s size.

Reagan and Bush had the same scheme in mind. Some call it “supply-side economics,” others a “voodoo” variety on the idea that tax cuts release “stifled creative energies,” stimulate higher economic growth and produce greater government revenue. The Reagan one signaled “anything goes.” Besides generous benefits for the rich and business, it encouraged speculative real estate investment, especially for commercial ventures. It also removed restrictions on corporate takeovers.

A year later, interest rates headed down, stock and bond prices shot up, a speculative bonanza was unleashed, and here’s the bottom line. Reaganomics failed to encourage productive investment, except for selected defense contractors. Money instead poured into equities and debt instruments, high-risk real estate, junk bond-financed leveraged buyouts, and tax-sheltered oil well and other development.

At the same time, infrastructure needs were ignored, organized labor was targeted, government became the problem, and deregulation the solution to get it off our backs. Throughout the 1980s and since: organized labor ranks declined, high-paying manufacturing jobs were lost, working American living standards declined, and an astonishing generational shift began – the annual wealth transfer of over $1 trillion from 90 million working class households to for-profit corporations and the richest 1% of the population to create an unprecedented wealth disparity. It continues unabated and is destroying the bedrock middle class without which democracy can’t survive and is already on life support and sinking.

Simultaneously, by the mid-1980s, the US went from being the world’s largest creditor to a net debtor nation for the first time since 1914. Budget deficits as well skyrocketed along with the national debt, and the true economic condition was revealed. “It was sick.” Today, it’s much sicker and depends on “the kindness of strangers” the way it did in the roaring twenties until the 1929 market crash smashed it.

At the end of the 1980s, a lesser version of it occurred from the savings and loan industry (S & Ls) collapse. During the decade, almost $1 trillion went into speculative real estate, and for the first time banks were allowed to participate. S & Ls took full advantage in an anything goes, deregulated environment. The 1982 Garn-St. Germain Act let them invest in anything they wished with government-backed $100,000 per account insurance. It allowed reckless speculation, massive fraud, and was an ideal way for organized crime and CIA to launder billions in drugs-related funds.

The 1980s ended the Reagan era when George HW Bush became President in 1989. It coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November and breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Around the same time, it was decided to target the Middle East and its vast oil reserves to counter the fear of a united Germany and economically expanding continental Europe that could threaten US dominance. Saddam would be the victim and an easy target after being weakened by the 1980 – 1988 Iran-Iraq war and a $65 billion debt to foreign creditors.

The scheme was to lure him into a trap (with Kuwait as bait) to provide a pretext for US military intervention. The rest is history:

— Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990;

— four days later Operation Desert Shield was launched; harsh economic sanctions were imposed and a large US troop deployment began;

— Operation Desert Storm began on January 17, 1991 and ended six weeks later on February 28;

— Next came 12 years of the most comprehensive genocidal sanctions ever imposed on a country that included a crippling embargo; hundreds of thousands died and millions suffered;

— Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched on March 19, 2003 and is still ongoing nearly five years later; the “cradle of civilization” was erased, a free market paradise created, and the death, human misery and displacement toll is incalculable for an impossible to win guerilla war.

From the Evil Empire to the Axis of Evil

In his 1991 State of the Union address, GHW Bush proclaimed a New World Order, quickly dropped the term but pursued the policy. The younger Bush does as well with focus shifted from the “Evil Empire” to the “Axis of Evil.” It was a vague construct that conveniently encompassed the Eurasian continent and its oil riches. To ensure US dominance, they had to be controlled, especially against key Japanese, European Union (EU) and emerging Chinese rivals.

A threefold scheme was hatched to do it:

— target Russia, eastern Europe and all parts of the world to ensure IMF rules and US dollar hegemony are maintained;

— control every country with significant energy or other vital raw material resources; and

— maintain unchallengeable military supremacy to deter opposition to US-imposed rules.

The catch word was “globalization.” It denies global justice, globalizes US dominance, and consolidates it by political, economic and military enforcement. At the start of the 1990s, however, Japan had become the world’s economic and banking leader and had to be confronted. A reckless speculation decade left American banks in deep crisis. Japan operated differently, prospered and challenged US supremacy. Its influence was recognized and had to be undercut.

Treasury Secretary James Baker laid the trap through the 1985 Plaza accord and the Baker-Miyazawa month later agreement. He got Tokyo to exercise monetary and fiscal measures to expand domestic demand and reduce Japan’s external surplus. At the same time, the Bank of Japan cut interest rates to 2.5% in 1987 and held that level until May, 1989. The plan was for lower rates to stimulate US goods purchases. Instead, cheap money went into Japanese stocks and real estate and led to colossal twin bubbles still deflating today.

The yen was also affected. Within months, it shot up 40% against the dollar, and overnight Japan became the world’s largest banking center, surpassing London and New York. As the country’s twin bubbles inflated, Japan became home to the world’s 10 largest banks, an astonishing achievement for a country its size or any country. Things were so extreme at the bubble’s peak that the value of Tokyo real estate, in dollars, exceeded all of it in the US, and the nominal value of Japanese stocks amounted to 42% of the world’s total – but not for long.

Tokyo equities peaked in December, 1989. Three months later, the Nikkei dropped 23% or over $1 trillion in value, and it was just the beginning. From its 38,915 peak, Japanese stocks plunged to 7831 in April, 2003 with no assurance that’s a bottom. Why and how could this happen? Japanese officials speculated on the reason.

In 1990, Japan proposed financing the former Soviet Union’s reconstruction and drew strong US opposition. In addition, Japan’s MITI model was suggested for former communist countries with Washington dead set against it for two reasons: it might exclude US companies, and it would rely on state economic guidance that impressively fueled Japanese and Asian Tiger growth. It had to be stopped as America had other ideas for the post-Cold War era.

Pressure was applied with threats of drastic US troop cuts that would endanger Japan’s security. The message was abandon economic plans or provide your own defense. At the same time, Japan’s twin bubbles kept deflating, months later the Nikkei had lost $5 trillion in value, the country was badly hurt, and its challenge to America was dropped.

That was Phase One. Phase Two confronted Asian Tiger countries because (like Japan) their economic model bested the US and threatened it. It was a major embarrassment to IMF rules that exploit developing states for America’s gain. In the 1980s, East Asia boomed with 7 – 8% annual growth rates compared to half that in the US. Their market economy followed state guidance and planning and it worked. They were also debt-free and unhampered by IMF restrictions. In addition, their model enhanced social security and productivity, promoted universal education and set limits on foreign investment and imports. Washington had other ideas.

In 1993, demands were made to deregulate, open financial markets, and allow free capital flows. Easing followed and trouble began. From 1994 to 1997, hot money flooded in and created speculative real estate, stock and other asset bubbles. Hedge funds (including George Soros’ billions allied with major international banks) forcefully acted. They attacked the weakest regional economy and its currency – Thailand and its baht. The aim? Force devaluation, and it worked. Thailand capitulated, floated its currency and turned to the IMF for help it never before needed.

Next came the Philippines, Indonesia and South Korea as their “populations sank into economic chaos and (mass) poverty.” Prosperous Asian Tigers were humbled, they were forced into IMF debt bondage, and Russia got the same medicine plus a bonus. A sole superpower remained under US dollar supremacy, and US military bases encircled its former adversary, were closing in, and targeted an emerging China as well.

Russian shock therapy was especially tragic. Washington wanted to deindustrialize the country to permanently destroy the old Soviet economic structure. Boris Yeltsin complied, and IMF wreckage was the scheme. A corporatist state replaced a communist one, and its apparatchiks were winners along with a handful of mutual fund managers who made dizzying returns from newly privatized Russian companies. In addition, 17 nouveau billionaires (called “the oligarchs”) emerged overnight, strip mined the country’s wealth, and shipped it overseas to safe havens.

Russia’s people were devastated and still suffer. Unemployment is epidemic, well over half the population is impoverished, 80% of farmers were bankrupted, and 70,000 state factories were shuttered. And it got worse. Social services ended, diseases like HIV/AIDS became rampant, suicides rose, violent crime jumped fourfold, and the population now declines by about 700,000 a year with free market medicine already having killed over 10% of it. Outside a select elite, the former superpower was humbled, reduced to Third World status, and it created potential for Big Oil to exploit Russia’s energy riches that were given away for kopecks on the ruble.

Seven oligarchs grabbed off half the country’s natural resources. Their hard currency profits were dollarized, but by summer 1998 things got out of hand. With the economy in trouble, the IMF extended an emergency $23 billion loan to support the ruble and protect speculative western investments, but it came too late. On August 15, Russia did the unthinkable. It defaulted and, for a time, shock the dollarized world. The largest of all hedge funds (LTCM) bet on the country and leveraged up manyfold. A financial disaster loomed, the Fed intervened, Russia’s default was quietly forgiven, and dollarization resumed.

Earlier, the Balkans got shock therapy and became a target for dismemberment with a simple idea in mind – destroy its mixed socialist economy that was independent of the West and couldn’t be tolerated. Europe’s soft underbelly also lies between central Asia’s oil and the route over which Washington wants it transported. It had to be brought to heel, and a US-led NATO was the way. Softening up began by the late 1980s, continued into the new decade, and George Soros was at it again. IMF medicine was employed, living standards plunged, and economic chaos resulted. Breakup began, each region was on its own, and a lot of pushing came from the West.

Croatia and Slovania seceded first in 1991. That lit the fuse that exploded in a series of Balkan wars. Slobadan Milosevic became the fall guy, was targeted for removal, conflict lasted the decade, and it culminated with US-NATO’s merciless 79 day 1999 Serbia bombing that caused an estimated $40 billion of destruction to the country’s economy and infrastructure. The US moved in and set up shop in one of its largest military bases in the world – Camp Bondsteel near Gnjilane in southeast Kosovo. It’s a Serbian province that was split off and occupied by design. The West’s divide and conquer strategy is in play, Kosovo heads for independence, and the mother country’s objections don’t matter.

At war’s end, US Eurasian control was enhanced but not guaranteed as the contest for Caspian riches is still in play with Russia, China and others vying for them.

A New Millennium for Oil Geopolitics

A new president accompanied the new millennium with a changed Washington focus – oil is at its core, controlling it is key, and Dick Cheney’s first job as vice-president was working with the (James) Baker Institute to draft the April 2001 National Energy Policy Report. It projected a growing dependency on foreign oil, highlighted Iraq’s “de-stabilizing influence,” and recommended “restat(ing) goals with respect to Iraq policy.” It also linked the Pentagon with future energy policy plans.

Core report recommendations signalled how with a crystal clear message:

— securing foreign sources is key;

— less than cooperative governments in volatile parts of the world control some of the largest sources; and

— Cheney highlighted concern at a private 1999 London Institute of Petroleum meeting saying: “by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day.”

He didn’t flinch saying where we’d get it: “the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies….” and Iraq is the potential crown jewel with the largest of all untapped low-hanging fruit. Immediately on entering the White House, Cheney & Co. swung into action. They focused on Iraq like a laser, targeted Saddam Hussein, and removing him from office became top goal.

Washington teems with schemes and intrigue, but a neoconservative think tank was particularly diabolical. Established in 1997, it was called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), its goal was unchallengeable US dominance, and a policy paper was drafted to achieve it. It appeared in 2000 and was called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” It stated that “America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of US military forces.” It further called for “American hegemony” and “full-spectrum dominance,” and believed achieving it would be long-term “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

A rogues gallery of PNAC members joined the Bush administration in 2001, key among them Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, and topping their goals was removing Saddam Hussein. September 11 obliged, the “war on terror” was born, “terrorism” replaced communism as the new enemy, its core was in the oil-rich Middle East, and its headquarters was in Iraq. Removing the Taliban was just a warm-up for the main event ahead. It was conceived before bin Laden was “Enemy Number One” and overnight Al-Queda became western civilization’s greatest threat.

On October 7, 2001 (four weeks after 9/11), America went to war. Target One was Afghanistan, controlling Central Asian oil was the goal, transporting it through Afghanistan was the plan, and the Taliban had to go because they rejected one-way Washington (double) deal making. They fled Kabul five weeks later, Northern Alliance warlords took over, a puppet president was installed, war ended (for a time), and the focus shifted to Iraq.

Prepping the public began, Saddam became another Hitler, his WMDs threatened western civilization, so he had to go. “Shock and awe” began on March 19, 2003, and Baghdad fell three weeks later. Saddam was removed, fighting “officially” ended in May, and to almost no one’s surprise, no WMDs were found because they’re weren’t any, and that was known by the mid-1990s or earlier.

Paul Wolfowitz attended an unreported Singapore security conference in June. He was asked why America chose WMDs as a causis belli when none existed. He answered it was “the only thing we could agree on.” He was also asked why Iraq was targeted, not North Korea and its nuclear threat, and he explained: “The country swims on a sea of oil” so there was no other choice with world supply running out.

That conclusion came out of an alarming September 9, 2001 Oil Depletion Analysis Centre energy policy memo to Tony Blair. It highlighted “hydrocarbon difficulties,” declining output, and importance of Iraq as the one remaining untapped oil-rich country. Securing it was key because credible geological reports argued that easy cheap oil was dramatically declining while global demand was rising, especially in emerging China and India. For almost a century, world economic growth needed cheap, plentiful oil. No good substitute exists so controlling what’s left is essential.

Further, if “peak oil” has been reached, as many believe, its cost will explode, and one analyst predicted: “Beyond 2005, the energy required to find and extract a barrel of oil will exceed the energy contained in the barrel.” Further, he estimated most major oil sources are near or at peak, for every new barrel discovered, four are being used, and the only cheap untapped supply left is in the Middle East where around two-thirds of proved reserves remain. Five regional countries are key – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, the Gulf Emirates (notably Qatar) and Iraq above all with estimates that its potential may be 432 billion barrels or around two-thirds more than Saudi Arabia’s proved reserves.

If true, Iraq’s importance is vital, its real estate is the world’s most valuable, and controlling it unchallenged means “Washington (holds) the trump cards over all potential economic rivals,” friends and foes. Even more grandiose would be to control every major and potential worldwide oil source and transport route to achieve unimaginable omnipotence. It would be a global-scale chokehold to decide who gets supply, who doesn’t, how much and at what price. It would thereby assure who controls world economic development and remains Number One.

Unchallengeable military power is key and the reason the Bush administration repositioned its global presence through a web of new bases. They’ve been strategically placed where Cold War geopolitics didn’t permit. Unsurprisingly, they target Eurasia and its importance Zbigniew Brzezinski highlighted in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard.” He referred to the region as the “center of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and Indian subcontinent.” Dominating it assures the US access to and control of its vast energy reserves, so that becomes Goal One.

But it doesn’t exclude broader aims, including Africa that will supply around one-fourth of future US oil supply, according to some analysts. It explains the Pentagon’s AFRICOM presence that’s expected to be fully operational by late summer and be responsible for the entire continent and its valued resources that include more than energy.

Swing over to Latin America and its energy potential. Countries like Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil and Mexico are very much in US plans with the Bolivarian Republic far and away most important. According to Hugo Chavez and some US estimates, the country has more potential reserves than Saudi Arabia when its heavy oil is included. It explains SOUTHCOM’S mission and command over 30 regional countries with a growing presence in a number of them and ongoing operations (some covert) throughout Latin America.

Engdahl ends his book discussing oil’s importance to US “full spectrum dominance.” Controlling it directly or indirectly through client regimes means holding “a true weapon of mass destruction (and) potential blackmail over the rest of the world. Who would dare challenge the dollar” as the world’s reserve currency? And if IMF rules keep restraining developing countries’ growth, their oil demand will be curbed, so all the more for America and its key Global North allies at a time when most world oil sources have peaked. More than ever then, controlling world energy reserves is crucial to maintaining economic growth.

The 1970s oil shocks were warning shots. Today, threatened shortfalls are real and worsening. We call controlling world supply promoting democracy, others see the subterfuge, and some critics feel our imperial arrogance defines our weakness. Today, America is unrivaled in global power, and Engdahl quoted the late Edward Said after Iraq’s invasion saying: “Every single empire (says) it is not like all the others, that (it’s special), that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy (and only use) force as a last resort.” It remains to be seen what’s ahead in “the New American Century,” but the evidence so far isn’t encouraging, and that’s putting it mildly.

Global Research Associate Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time.

F. William Engdahl is the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press) and Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, www.globalresearch.ca.

William F. Engdahl’s A Century of War can be ordered from Amazon

Click to order William Engdahl’s book published by Global Research

Seeds of Destruction

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8070


F. William Engdahl’s “A Century of War” Part I by Stephen Lendman

“Doomsday Seed Vault” in the Arctic by F. William Engdahl (GMO)

Engdahl-F. William

New World Order – NWO

9/11: The “Perfect Opportunity” for North American Integration by Andrew G. Marshall

by Andrew G. Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
Feb. 14, 2008

9/11: The “Perfect Opportunity” for North American Integration

On February 12, 2008, the Canadian newspaper, the Financial Post, published an opinion piece by Michael Hart, of Carleton University, entitled, “Canada Blew It,” in which he blamed the “slow” approach to North American integration on Canada’s policies following 9/11. The article begins by stating:

“The Canadian and U.S. economies have become intertwined in response to demands by Canadians and Americans for each other’s products, services, capital, and ideas. Yet the border as presently constituted protects Canadians and Americans from each other, not from global security threats. It also presents a risk to the wealth-creating flow of people, goods, services and capital between the two countries.”1

Hart states that in order to “address global security concerns”, Canada and the US need to, “develop co-operative solutions to common problems.” He stated to do this, Canada and the US should implement an, “agenda aimed at removing the border to the largest extent possible as an obstacle to Canada-U.S. interaction and integration.” He continues in outlining the steps to be taken in this agenda, the first of which is to, “re-imagine the border.” Hart explains that much of the problems with the border are a result of “regulatory compliance”, as in having a border, to which he proposes a solution in which, “Canada and the United States need to aggressively pursue regulatory convergence,” or in other words, harmonization. He continues, “It is in Canada’s interests to align as many of its regulatory requirements as possible with those of the United States.”

In discussing the security of “North America’s” economic infrastructure, Hart states, “Similar to our interdependence in ensuring the security of the North American continent, neither country can ensure the security of its economic infrastructure without the full co-operation of the other,” to which he elaborates that, “we need to build the necessary institutions and networks of co-operation that ensure that American and Canadian officials are working together toward common objectives and doing so on the basis of constructive political oversight.”2 Amazingly, Hart stated that it is “not a trade agenda”, but is, in fact, “an integration agenda that requires the full participation of departments and agencies on both sides of the border responsible for border administration, economic regulation, and infrastructure integrity.”

Hart continued in his critique of the slow process of integration, stating that, “The crisis of Sept. 11, 2001, provided a perfect opportunity to seize the moment to re-imagine the border, but Canada blew it [emphasis added].” This is a clear example of how important it is for those who oppose the processes of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), and the North American Union which it seeks to create, must also examine the relationship between integration and terror; between the North American Union and 9/11. These are not separate elements of one another, these events are themselves deeply integrated, in both purpose and strategy. It is integral for those that oppose the NAU to review the attacks of September 11, 2001, to see the linkages between them and understand them as something beyond random associations and reactions to one another.

As to explaining why “Canada blew it,” Hart states that, “Rather than work with the United States to address real security and related concerns, and to build a much-better functioning, more open, and more integrated North America, Canadian authorities reacted defensively and anxiously to American security concerns.” But this is a gross misrepresentation, as shortly after 9/11, in December of 2001, “Governor Tom Ridge and Deputy Prime Minister John Manley Signed the Smart Border Declaration and Associated 30-Point Action Plan to Enhance the Security of Our Shared Border While Facilitating the Legitimate Flow of People and Goods,”3 according to the White House’s December 2002 press release on the subject. Part of the 30-Point Action plan included “Biometric Identifiers”, stating, “In the interest of having cards that could be used across different modes of travel, we have agreed to use cards that are capable of storing multiple biometrics.” Another of the 30 points was “Permanent Residence Cards”, or in other words, ID Cards. Further, the plans also stated that, “The United States and Canada have agreed to share Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Records (API/PNR) on high-risk travelers destined to either country.” This is hardly stepping away from integration between the two countries, as Michael Hart seems to imagine.

Hart further explains that, “In the absence of another crisis, only inspired leadership can overcome the narrow-minded response of special and entrenched interests and bureaucratic self-preservation.”4 Then, in revealing the true intent of the SPP, Hart states, “Each group [Canada and the US] is adept at exploiting the default position of incrementalism, exemplified by such initiatives as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Progress will be made under the SPP banner, but at a snail’s pace and without the impact needed to make a perceptible difference.” This is a public admission of the SPP being an incremental approach to “deep integration”, of which then ultimate goal is to form a North American Union. Hart explains that a key source of leadership is, “a business sector prepared to speak out forcefully and convincingly about the costs and lost opportunities flowing from misdirected and overzealous border administration.”

So who is Michael Hart? He is the Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.5 He is the first person to hold this position, which is named after Simon Reisman, “Canada’s Chief Negotiator during the free trade talks with the United States, he also participated in a series of important international trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.”6 Reisman was recently quoted by CTV regarding the 1988 Canada US Free Trade Agreement, saying, “We got it, we didn’t get it all. We left a little for posterity.”7 Further, Michael Hart “was a senior official in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade specializing in trade policy and trade negotiations.”8 He was also the author of a document entitled, “Free Trade in Free Fall? Assessing the Impact of Nontariff Barriers on Canada-U.S. Trade,” published by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.9 From 2004 to 2005, Hart was a visiting scholar at the Center for North American Studies at American University,10 of which the Director is Robert Pastor.11

Robert Pastor is infamously referred to as the “father” of the North American Union, and arguably its chief public spokesperson and champion, and was the Co-Chair of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, a joint task force between the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) in Canada, as well as the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, which produced the document “Building a North American Community.”12 This document is the blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Agreement of North America, which outlines the overall objectives of the agreement in its goals of “integrating” North America.

Robert Pastor is also on the Board of Directors of the North American Forum on Integration, or NAFI, alongside the Chairman, Stephen Black, who is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.13 NAFI, “aims to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region,”14 which every year, since 2005, holds what it calls a “Triumvirate”, which their website describes as, “an annual North American mock parliament,” which, “allows a hundred Canadian, American and Mexican university students to better understand the North American dynamic as well as the challenges faced by NAFTA partners.”15 Among the participating Universities in NAFI, is the American University, (of course), Simon Fraser University, of which an economics professor emeritus recently wrote an article for the Financial Post in which he mentioned the amero currency as a goal in North America [See: North American Monetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero, Global Research16], and another notable university is Carleton University.17 It just so happens that the author of Canada Blew It, Michael Hart, works at Carleton.

The process towards a North American Union is embedded in our societal institutions, from the corporate world, to media, government and education. These are individuals connected through joint membership in think tanks and interest groups of those who share ideological beliefs in internationalism and globalization. So, too, must those who oppose the SPP and the NAU be embedded in all the institutions of our societies, working not for personal gain and profit, but for country and freedom, preserving our rights, liberties and identity, and exposing those who seek to challenge our inherent human rights.


1 Michael Hart, Canada Blew It. The Financial Post: February 12, 2008:

2 Ibid.

3 Office of the Press Secretary, U.S. – Canada Smart Border/30 Point Action Plan Update. The White House: December 6, 2002:

4 Michael Hart, Ibid.

5 About NPSIA, Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy. Carleton University:

6 Ibid.

7 CTV.ca news staff, Poll says most North Americans support free trade. CTV News: September 30, 2007:

8 About NPSIA, Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy. Carleton University:

9 Events at the Center, Free Trade in Free Fall? Assessing the Impact of Nontariff Barriers on Canada-U.S. Trade. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: February 8, 2008:

10 Past Senior Fellows, Michael Hart. Center for North American Studies at American University:

11 Center for North American Studies, Robert A. Pastor. Center for North American Studies at American University:

12 CFR.org, Building a North American Community. Council on Foreign Relations Press: May 2005: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

13 NAFI, Our Board of Directors. NAFINA: http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/fina/conseil.asp?langue=eng&menu=fina

14 NAFI, The North American Forum on Integration.

15 Ibid.

16 Andrew G. Marshall, North American Monetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero. Global Research: January 20, 2008:

NAFI, Triumvirate 2006.


NAU North America Union

North-American Montetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero by Andrew G. Marshall

Marshall-Andrew G.

Mosaic News – 2/13/08: World News from the Middle East

Dandelion Salad



This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.


For more: http://linktv.org/originalseries
Hezbollah Leader Assassinated,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
Who is Imad Mughania?” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
Mughania’s Funeral Coincides with Hariri’s Assassination Anniversary,” Dubai TV, UAE
French FM Urges IAEA to Politicize Iran’s Case,” IRIB2 TV, Iran
Pipeline to Transport Iraqi Oil to Europe,” Baghdad TV, Iraq
Journalists Continue to be Targeted in Iraq,” New TV, Lebanon
Talent Show in Afghanistan Offends Conservatives,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
No Red on Valentine’s Day in Saudi Arabia,” New TV, Lebanon
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod


Ro Tierney: Blood-Red Manifesto (music video)

Dandelion Salad


This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war/violence and should only be viewed by a mature audience.


July 13, 2008
(WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES). I wrote this song shortly after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. I compiled this video from images and videos which I feel displays the furious inspiration for the song.

Continue reading

Jockeying For A Plaza by Guadamour (inside info; drugs)


by Guadamour
Dandelion Salad
featured writer

Guadamour’s blog post
Feb. 14, 2008

Jockeying For A Plaza

Living in a community butted up against the Mexican border sometimes gives one a warped and distorted sense of reality.

I have been writing about border issues for over thirty years and have developed a number of contacts that I can rely on for information.

Yesterday I incidentally encountered a contact whose has fed me accurate information about drug trafficking for years.

He said, “Everyone is hurting. Everyone is broke. There is no movement.”

I asked him. “Why?”

“It’s Paredes,” he said, “The new mayor of Agua Prieta. He won’t let anyone else run drugs or people. He controls everything–meth, heroin, pot, cocaine. He has his own army of pistoleros, and he is paying $350,000 dollars a month to the government for the plaza.”

I thanked him for the information, and think how nothing has really changed, how a plaza or the right to do something has to be bought and paid for.

I also think about all the assassinations in Agua Prieta in the last few years as everyone has been jockeying for control of the plaza.

I think about the violence and death in Mexico from firearms. Firearms are illegal in Mexico except for government authorities. Firearms are smuggled into Mexico from the US, even as drugs and people are being smuggled out.

Mexicans tend to share and make sure everyone is taken care of and provided for. I realize that when this breaks down there are dire consequences.

With that in mind, I make a prediction that Mayor Paredes will not last long in charge of the plaza. He will be assassinated so everyone can share in the plaza of smuggling into the USA’s insatiable demand for drugs and people.

Congress moves toward expanding government spying, with immunity for telecoms

Dandelion Salad

By Joe Kay
14 February 2008

The US Congress has taken steps this week toward passing a bill that would expand government spying powers while granting immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in violations of the law.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted to permanently extend the so-called Protect America Act, originally passed in August 2007. The bill passed by the Senate includes everything demanded by the Bush administration, including immunity for companies that participated in the National Security Agency’s illegal warrantless domestic spying program.

The Bush administration is seeking to place the NSA program on a firmer legal footing by pushing through changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires the government to obtain a warrant whenever it intercepts communications involving US residents.

The Protect America Act includes these changes, but the bill is set to expire on February 15. For this reason, the White House, and leading figures in both the Democratic and Republican parties, are pushing for a permanent extension.


FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Senate Approves Surveillance Bill, Preserves Telecom Immunity

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Mr Bush You Are A Fascist!