Thursday, June 28, 2007

Use a Skate, Goto Jail!

Hot Springs officer put on leave as investigation opens into skateboarder video

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
AP
Thursday June 28, 2007

Comment: Witness how when the cop grabs the young girl in a choke hold the young guy does everything he can to stop it. This boy is already ten times the man that the cop will ever be.

Hot Springs police placed an officer on administrative leave while they investigate an Internet video that appears to show him choking three skateboarders, the mayor said Tuesday.

Mayor Mike Bush said investigators talked with passers-by and business owners who saw Officer Joey Williams stop the skateboarders on a city sidewalk Thursday for breaking an ordinance banning skating in the area. A YouTube video posted Monday shows Williams apparently choking one of the youths after forcing him to the ground, while later chasing and wrestling two others while holding them in a headlock.

“Unfortunately, the video shows it pretty good,” Bush said. “I don’t condone that sort of stuff and I tell everybody that calls me, we don’t know where he was before and during and after this video.”

When asked about the officer’s conduct, Bush called Williams “one of 100 best and finest we’ve got” in the city’s police department.

The mayor declined to say what the city’s next step would be.

“Until the investigation is complete, we really don’t know what we’re going to do,” Bush said.

Williams did not answer a request through the department for an interview and did not respond to a phone message left at a home number in his name.

Police spokesman McCrary Means identified two of those arrested as Matthew Jon McCormack, 21, and Skylar Nalls, 19, both of Hot Springs. Means said McCormack faces a misdemeanor battery charge after purportedly pushing or striking a 67-year-old city employee during the melee. Nalls was cited for skateboarding and faces misdemeanor charges of fleeing and obstructing governmental operations.

Means said four youths involved in the incident also face skateboarding citations and resisting arrest charges.

McCormack, who works at Hot Springs’ Funbox Skateshop, said both he and Nalls were free on $1,000 bond. McCormack said most of the youths remained at home on house arrest.

“It’s never been an issue. They made that rule a long time ago, but I’ve skated down through there all the time and it’s never been a problem,” McCormack said. “It was kind of shocking for it to be such a huge issue.”

McCormack said skaters immediately started shooting the scene with a digital camera capable of shooting video and an Hi8 video camera. The YouTube video, spliced between the two cameras, shows the skaters along Hot Springs’ Central Avenue, home to eight bathhouses that figured prominently into the town’s popularity in the early 1900s.

Voices in the background can be heard asking Williams why he was arresting the skaters.

“When I tell you to stop and you tell everybody to keep going, that’s fleeing, that’s disorderly conduct, that’s a violation of city ordinance,” Williams is heard saying in the video.

Williams later threatened one of teens laying on the ground that he’d spray him with pepper spray if he moved.

McCormack disputed many of the police allegations, especially his battery charge. He said he only pulled on the city employee’s arm after the man picked a girl off her feet in a chokehold.

The video on YouTube had been viewed 30,000 times as of Tuesday afternoon.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007


Chapter 14:
THE NEW CONSERVATISM AND A NEW WORLD ORDER



President Ronald Reagan and USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev
after signing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty,
December 1987. (Dirck Halstead/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)

"I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage."
-- California Governor
Ronald Reagan, 1974

A SOCIETY
IN TRANSITION

Shifts in the structure of American society, begun years or even decades earlier, had become apparent by the time the 1980s arrived. The composition of the population and the most important jobs and skills in American society had undergone major changes.

The dominance of service jobs in the economy became undeniable. By the mid-1980s, nearly three-fourths of all employees worked in the service sector, for instance, as retail clerks, office workers, teachers, physicians, and government employees.

Service-sector activity benefited from the availability and increased use of the computer. The information age arrived, with hardware and software that could aggregate previously unimagined amounts of data about economic and social trends. The federal government had made significant investments in computer technology in the 1950s and 1960s for its military and space programs.

In 1976, two young California entrepreneurs, working out of a garage, assembled the first widely marketed computer for home use, named it the Apple, and ignited a revolution. By the early 1980s, millions of microcomputers had found their way into U.S. businesses and homes, and in 1982, Time magazine dubbed the computer its "Machine of the Year."

Meanwhile, America's "smokestack industries" were in decline. The U.S. automobile industry reeled under competition from highly efficient Japanese carmakers. By 1980 Japanese companies already manufactured a fifth of the vehicles sold in the United States. American manufacturers struggled with some success to match the cost efficiencies and engineering standards of their Japanese rivals, but their former dominance of the domestic car market was gone forever. The giant old-line steel companies shrank to relative insignificance as foreign steel makers adopted new technologies more readily.

Consumers were the beneficiaries of this ferocious competition in the manufacturing industries, but the painful struggle to cut costs meant the permanent loss of hundreds of thousands of blue-collar jobs. Those who could made the switch to the service sector; others became unfortunate statistics.

Population patterns shifted as well. After the end of the postwar "baby boom" (1946 to 1964), the overall rate of population growth declined and the population grew older. Household composition also changed. In 1980 the percentage of family households dropped; a quarter of all groups were now classified as "nonfamily households," in which two or more unrelated persons lived together.

New immigrants changed the character of American society in other ways. The 1965 reform in immigration policy shifted the focus away from Western Europe, facilitating a dramatic increase in new arrivals from Asia and Latin America. In 1980, 808,000 immigrants arrived, the highest number in 60 years, as the country once more became a haven for people from around the world.

Additional groups became active participants in the struggle for equal opportunity. Homosexuals, using the tactics and rhetoric of the civil rights movement, depicted themselves as an oppressed group seeking recognition of basic rights. In 1975, the U.S. Civil Service Commission lifted its ban on employment of homosexuals. Many states enacted anti-discrimination laws.

Then, in 1981, came the discovery of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Transmitted sexually or through blood transfusions, it struck homosexual men and intravenous drug users with particular virulence, although the general population proved vulnerable as well. By 1992, over 220,000 Americans had died of AIDS. The AIDS epidemic has by no means been limited to the United States, and the effort to treat the disease now encompasses physicians and medical researchers throughout the world.

CONSERVATISM AND THE RISE OF RONALD REAGAN

For many Americans, the economic, social, and political trends of the previous two decades -- crime and racial polarization in many urban centers, challenges to traditional values, the economic downturn and inflation of the Carter years -- engendered a mood of disillusionment. It also strengthened a renewed suspicion of government and its ability to deal effectively with the country's social and political problems.

Conservatives, long out of power at the national level, were well positioned politically in the context of this new mood. Many Americans were receptive to their message of limited government, strong national defense, and the protection of traditional values.

This conservative upsurge had many sources. A large group of fundamentalist Christians were particularly concerned about crime and sexual immorality. They hoped to return religion or the moral precepts often associated with it to a central place in American life. One of the most politically effective groups in the early 1980s, the Moral Majority, was led by a Baptist minister, Jerry Falwell. Another, led by the Reverend Pat Robertson, built an organization, the Christian Coalition, that by the 1990s was a significant force in the Republican Party. Using television to spread their messages, Falwell, Robertson, and others like them developed substantial followings.

Another galvanizing issue for conservatives was divisive and emotional: abortion. Opposition to the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, which upheld a woman's right to an abortion in the early months of pregnancy, brought together a wide array of organizations and individuals. They included, but were not limited to, Catholics, political conservatives, and religious evangelicals, most of whom regarded abortion under virtually any circumstances as tantamount to murder. Pro-choice and pro-life (that is, pro- and anti-abortion rights) demonstrations became a fixture of the political landscape.

Within the Republican Party, the conservative wing grew dominant once again. They had briefly seized control of the Republican Party in 1964 with its presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, then faded from the spotlight. By 1980, however, with the apparent failure of liberalism under Carter, a "New Right" was poised to return to dominance.

Using modern direct mail techniques as well as the power of mass communications to spread their message and raise funds, drawing on the ideas of conservatives like economist Milton Friedman, journalists William F. Buckley, and George Will, and research institutions like the Heritage Foundation, the New Right played a significant role in defining the issues of the 1980s.

The "Old" Goldwater Right had favored strict limits on government intervention in the economy. This tendency was reinforced by a significant group of "New Right" "libertarian conservatives" who distrusted government in general and opposed state interference in personal behavior. But the New Right also encompassed a stronger, often evangelical faction determined to wield state power to encourage its views. The New Right favored tough measures against crime, a strong national defense, a constitutional amendment to permit prayer in public schools, and opposition to abortion.

The figure that drew all these disparate strands together was Ronald Reagan. Reagan, born in Illinois, achieved stardom as an actor in Hollywood movies and television before turning to politics. He first achieved political prominence with a nationwide televised speech in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater. In 1966 Reagan won the governorship of California and served until 1975. He narrowly missed winning the Republican nomination for president in 1976 before succeeding in 1980 and going on to win the presidency from the incumbent, Jimmy Carter.

President Reagan's unflagging optimism and his ability to celebrate the achievements and aspirations of the American people persisted throughout his two terms in office. He was a figure of reassurance and stability for many Americans. Wholly at ease before the microphone and the television camera, Reagan was called the "Great Communicator."

Taking a phrase from the 17th-century Puritan leader John Winthrop, he told the nation that the United States was a "shining city on a hill," invested with a God-given mission to defend the world against the spread of Communist totalitarianism.

Reagan believed that government intruded too deeply into American life. He wanted to cut programs he contended the country did not need, and to eliminate "waste, fraud, and abuse." Reagan accelerated the program of deregulation begun by Jimmy Carter. He sought to abolish many regulations affecting the consumer, the workplace, and the environment. These, he argued, were inefficient, expensive, and detrimental to economic growth.

Reagan also reflected the belief held by many conservatives that the law should be strictly applied against violators. Shortly after becoming president, he faced a nationwide strike by U.S. air transportation controllers. Although the job action was forbidden by law, such strikes had been widely tolerated in the past. When the air controllers refused to return to work, he ordered them all fired. Over the next few years the system was rebuilt with new hires.

THE ECONOMY IN THE 1980s

President Reagan's domestic program was rooted in his belief that the nation would prosper if the power of the private economic sector was unleashed. The guiding theory behind it, "supply side" economics, held that a greater supply of goods and services, made possible by measures to increase business investment, was the swiftest road to economic growth. Accordingly, the Reagan administration argued that a large tax cut would increase capital investment and corporate earnings, so that even lower taxes on these larger earnings would increase government revenues.

Despite only a slim Republican majority in the Senate and a House of Representatives controlled by the Democrats, President Reagan succeeded during his first year in office in enacting the major components of his economic program, including a 25-percent tax cut for individuals to be phased in over three years. The administration also sought and won significant increases in defense spending to modernize the nation's military and counter what it felt was a continual and growing threat from the Soviet Union.

Under Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve's draconian increases in interest rates squeezed the runaway inflation that had begun in the late 1970s. The recession hit bottom in 1982, with the prime interest rates approaching 20 percent and the economy falling sharply. That year, real gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 2 percent; the unemployment rate rose to nearly 10 percent, and almost one-third of America's industrial plants lay idle. Throughout the Midwest, major firms like General Electric and International Harvester released workers. Stubbornly high petroleum prices contributed to the decline. Economic rivals like Germany and Japan won a greater share of world trade, and U.S. consumption of goods from other countries rose sharply.

Farmers also suffered hard times. During the 1970s, American farmers had helped India, China, the Soviet Union, and other countries suffering from crop shortages, and had borrowed heavily to buy land and increase production. But the rise in oil prices pushed up costs, and a worldwide economic slump in 1980 reduced the demand for agricultural products. Their numbers declined, as production increasingly became concentrated in large operations. Small farmers who survived had major difficulties making ends meet.

The increased military budget -- combined with the tax cuts and the growth in government health spending -- resulted in the federal government spending far more than it received in revenues each year. Some analysts charged that the deficits were part of a deliberate administration strategy to prevent further increases in domestic spending sought by the Democrats. However, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress refused to cut such spending. From $74,000-million in 1980, the deficit soared to $221,000-million in 1986 before falling back to $150,000-million in 1987.

The deep recession of the early 1980s successfully curbed the runaway inflation that had started during the Carter years. Fuel prices, moreover, fell sharply, with at least part of the drop attributable to Reagan's decision to abolish controls on the pricing and allocation of gasoline. Conditions began to improve in late 1983. By early 1984, the economy had rebounded. By the fall of 1984, the recovery was well along, allowing Reagan to run for re-election on the slogan, "It's morning again in America." He defeated his Democratic opponent, former Senator and Vice President Walter Mondale, by an overwhelming margin.

The United States entered one of the longest periods of sustained economic growth since World War II. Consumer spending increased in response to the federal tax cut. The stock market climbed as it reflected the optimistic buying spree. Over a five-year period following the start of the recovery, Gross National Product grew at an annual rate of 4.2 percent. The annual inflation rate remained between 3 and 5 percent from 1983 to 1987, except in 1986 when it fell to just under 2 percent, the lowest level in decades. The nation's GNP grew substantially during the 1980s; from 1982 to 1987, its economy created more than 13 million new jobs.

Steadfast in his commitment to lower taxes, Reagan signed the most sweeping federal tax-reform measure in 75 years during his second term. This measure, which had widespread Democratic as well as Republican support, lowered income tax rates, simplified tax brackets, and closed loopholes.

However, a significant percentage of this growth was based on deficit spending. Moreover, the national debt, far from being stabilized by strong economic growth, nearly tripled. Much of the growth occurred in skilled service and technical areas. Many poor and middle class families did less well. The administration, although an advocate of free trade, pressured Japan to agree to a voluntary quota on its automobile exports to the United States.

The economy was jolted on October 19, 1987, "Black Monday," when the stock market suffered the greatest one-day crash in its history, 22.6 percent. The causes of the crash included the large U.S. international trade and federal-budget deficits, the high level of corporate and personal debt, and new computerized stock trading techniques that allowed instantaneous selling of stocks and futures. Despite the memories of 1929 it evoked, however, the crash was a transitory event with little impact. In fact, economic growth continued, with the unemployment rate dropping to a 14-year low of 5.2 percent in June 1988.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

In foreign policy, Reagan sought a more assertive role for the nation, and Central America provided an early test. The United States provided El Salvador with a program of economic aid and military training when a guerrilla insurgency threatened to topple its government. It also actively encouraged the transition to an elected democratic government, but efforts to curb active right-wing death squads were only partly successful. U.S. support helped stabilize the government, but the level of violence there remained undiminished. A peace agreement was finally reached in early 1992.

U.S. policy toward Nicaragua was more controversial. In 1979 revolutionaries calling themselves Sandinistas overthrew the repressive right-wing Somoza regime and established a pro-Cuba, pro-Soviet dictatorship. Regional peace efforts ended in failure, and the focus of administration efforts shifted to support for the anti-Sandinista resistance, known as the contras.

Following intense political debate over this policy, Congress ended all military aid to the contras in October 1984, then, under administration pressure, reversed itself in the fall of 1986, and approved $100 million in military aid. However, a lack of success on the battlefield, charges of human rights abuses, and the revelation that funds from secret arms sales to Iran (see below) had been diverted to the contras undercut congressional support to continue this aid.

Subsequently, the administration of President George H.W. Bush, who succeeded Reagan as president in 1989, abandoned any effort to secure military aid for the contras. The Bush administration also exerted pressure for free elections and supported an opposition political coalition, which won an astonishing upset election in February 1990, ousting the Sandinistas from power.

The Reagan administration was more fortunate in witnessing a return to democracy throughout the rest of Latin America, from Guatemala to Argentina. The emergence of democratically elected governments was not limited to Latin America; in Asia, the "people power" campaign of Coraz�n Aquino overthrew the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, and elections in South Korea ended decades of military rule.

By contrast, South Africa remained intransigent in the face of U.S. efforts to encourage an end to racial apartheid through the controversial policy of "constructive engagement," quiet diplomacy coupled with public endorsement of reform. In 1986, frustrated at the lack of progress, the U.S. Congress overrode Reagan's veto and imposed a set of economic sanctions on South Africa. In February 1990, South African President F.W. de Klerk announced Nelson Mandela's release and began the slow dismantling of apartheid.

Despite its outspoken anti-Communist rhetoric, the Reagan administration's direct use of military force was restrained. On October 25, 1983, U.S. forces landed on the Caribbean island of Grenada after an urgent appeal for help by neighboring countries. The action followed the assassination of Grenada's leftist prime minister by members of his own Marxist-oriented party. After a brief period of fighting, U.S. troops captured hundreds of Cuban military and construction personnel and seized caches of Soviet-supplied arms. In December 1983, the last American combat troops left Grenada, which held democratic elections a year later.

The Middle East, however, presented a far more difficult situation. A military presence in Lebanon, where the United States was attempting to bolster a weak, but moderate pro-Western government, ended tragically, when 241 U.S. Marines were killed in a terrorist bombing in October 1983. In April 1986, U.S. Navy and Air Force planes struck targets in Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, in retaliation for Libyan-instigated terrorist attacks on U.S. military personnel in Europe.

In the Persian Gulf, the earlier breakdown in U.S.-Iranian relations and the Iran-Iraq War set the stage for U.S. naval activities in the region. Initially, the United States responded to a request from Kuwait for protection of its tanker fleet; but eventually the United States, along with naval vessels from Western Europe, kept vital shipping lanes open by escorting convoys of tankers and other neutral vessels traveling up and down the Gulf.

In late 1986 Americans learned that the administration had secretly sold arms to Iran in an attempt to resume diplomatic relations with the hostile Islamic government and win freedom for American hostages held in Lebanon by radical organizations that Iran controlled. Investigation also revealed that funds from the arms sales had been diverted to the Nicaraguan contras during a period when Congress had prohibited such military aid.

The ensuing Iran-contra hearings before a joint House-Senate committee examined issues of possible illegality as well as the broader question of defining American foreign policy interests in the Middle East and Central America. In a larger sense, the hearings were a constitutional debate about government secrecy and presidential versus congressional authority in the conduct of foreign relations. Unlike the celebrated Senate Watergate hearings 14 years earlier, they found no grounds for impeaching the president and could reach no definitive conclusion about these perennial issues.

U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS

In relations with the Soviet Union, President Reagan's declared policy was one of peace through strength. He was determined to stand firm against the country he would in 1983 call an "evil empire." Two early events increased U.S.-Soviet tensions: the suppression of the Solidarity labor movement in Poland in December 1981, and the destruction with 269 fatalities of an off-course civilian airliner, Korean Airlines Flight 007, by a Soviet jet fighter on September 1, 1983. The United States also condemned the continuing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and continued aid begun by the Carter administration to the mujahedeen resistance there.

During Reagan's first term, the United States spent unprecedented sums for a massive defense build-up, including the placement of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe to counter Soviet deployments of similar missiles. And on March 23, 1983, in one of the most hotly debated policy decisions of his presidency, Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) research program to explore advanced technologies, such as lasers and high-energy projectiles, to defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles. Although many scientists questioned the technological feasibility of SDI and economists pointed to the extraordinary sums of money involved, the administration pressed ahead with the project.

After re-election in 1984, Reagan softened his position on arms control. Moscow was amenable to agreement, in part because its economy already expended a far greater proportion of national output on its military than did the United States. Further increases, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev felt, would cripple his plans to liberalize the Soviet economy.

In November 1985, Reagan and Gorbachev agreed in principle to seek 50-percent reductions in strategic offensive nuclear arms as well as an interim agreement on intermediate-range nuclear forces. In December 1987, they signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty providing for the destruction of that entire category of nuclear weapons. By then, the Soviet Union seemed a less menacing adversary. Reagan could take much of the credit for a greatly diminished Cold War, but as his administration ended, almost no one realized just how shaky the USSR had become.

THE PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE H. W. BUSH

President Reagan enjoyed unusually high popularity at the end of his second term in office, but under the terms of the U.S. Constitution he could not run again in 1988. The Republican nomination went to Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, who was elected the 41st president of the United States.

Bush campaigned by promising voters a continuation of the prosperity Reagan had brought. In addition, he argued that he would support a strong defense for the United States more reliably than the Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis. He also promised to work for "a kinder, gentler America." Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts, claimed that less fortunate Americans were hurting economically and that the government had to help them while simultaneously bringing the federal debt and defense spending under control. The public was much more engaged, however, by Bush's economic message: No new taxes. In the balloting, Bush had a 54-to-46 percent popular vote margin.

During his first year in office, Bush followed a conservative fiscal program, pursuing policies on taxes, spending, and debt that were faithful to the Reagan administration's economic program. But the new president soon found himself squeezed between a large budget deficit and a deficit-reduction law. Spending cuts seemed necessary, and Bush possessed little leeway to introduce new budget items.

The Bush administration advanced new policy initiatives in areas not requiring major new federal expenditures. Thus, in November 1990, Bush signed sweeping legislation imposing new federal standards on urban smog, automobile exhaust, toxic air pollution, and acid rain, but with industrial polluters bearing most of the costs. He accepted legislation requiring physical access for the disabled, but with no federal assumption of the expense of modifying buildings to accommodate wheelchairs and the like. The president also launched a campaign to encourage volunteerism, which he called, in a memorable phrase, "a thousand points of light."

BUDGETS AND DEFICITS

Bush administration efforts to gain control over the federal budget deficit, however, were more problematic. One source of the difficulty was the savings and loan crisis. Savings banks -- formerly tightly regulated, low-interest safe havens for ordinary people -- had been deregulated, allowing these institutions to compete more aggressively by paying higher interest rates and by making riskier loans. Increases in the government's deposit insurance guaranteed reduced consumer incentive to shun less-sound institutions. Fraud, mismanagement, and the choppy economy produced widespread insolvencies among these thrifts (the umbrella term for consumer-oriented institutions like savings and loan associations and savings banks). By 1993, the total cost of selling and shuttering failed thrifts was staggering, nearly $525,000-million.

In January 1990, President Bush presented his budget proposal to Congress. Democrats argued that administration budget projections were far too optimistic, and that meeting the deficit-reduction law would require tax increases and sharper cuts in defense spending. That June, after protracted negotiations, the president agreed to a tax increase. All the same, the combination of economic recession, losses from the savings and loan industry rescue operation, and escalating health care costs for Medicare and Medicaid offset all the deficit-reduction measures and produced a shortfall in 1991 at least as large as the previous year's.

END TO THE COLD WAR

When Bush became president, the Soviet empire was on the verge of collapse. Gorbachev's efforts to open up the USSR's economy appeared to be floundering. In 1989, the Communist governments in one Eastern European country after another simply collapsed, after it became clear that Russian troops would not be sent to prop them up. In mid-1991, hard-liners attempted a coup d'etat, only to be foiled by Gorbachev rival Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian republic. At the end of that year, Yeltsin, now dominant, forced the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The Bush administration adeptly brokered the end of the Cold War, working closely with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. It led the negotiations that brought the unification of East and West Germany (September 1990), agreement on large arms reductions in Europe (November 1990), and large cuts in nuclear arsenals (July 1991). After the liquidation of the Soviet Union, the United States and the new Russian Federation agreed to phase out all multiple-warhead missiles over a 10-year period.

The disposal of nuclear materials and the ever-present concerns of nuclear proliferation now superseded the threat of nuclear conflict between Washington and Moscow.

THE GULF WAR

The euphoria caused by the drawing down of the Cold War was dramatically overshadowed by the August 2, 1990, invasion of the small nation of Kuwait by Iraq. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, and Iran, under its Islamic fundamentalist regime, had emerged as the two major military powers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf area. The two countries had fought a long, inconclusive war in the 1980s. Less hostile to the United States than Iran, Iraq had won some support from the Reagan and Bush administrations. The occupation of Kuwait, posing a threat to Saudi Arabia, changed the diplomatic calculation overnight.

President Bush strongly condemned the Iraqi action, called for Iraq's unconditional withdrawal, and sent a major deployment of U.S. troops to the Middle East. He assembled one of the most extraordinary military and political coalitions of modern times, with military forces from Asia, Europe, and Africa, as well as the Middle East.

In the days and weeks following the invasion, the U.N. Security Council passed 12 resolutions condemning the Iraqi invasion and imposing wide-ranging economic sanctions on Iraq. On November 29, it approved the use of force if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. Gorbachev's Soviet Union, once Iraq's major arms supplier, made no effort to protect its former client.

Bush also confronted a major constitutional issue. The U.S. Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to declare war. Yet in the second half of the 20th century, the United States had become involved in Korea and Vietnam without an official declaration of war and with only murky legislative authorization. On January 12, 1991, three days before the U.N. deadline, Congress granted President Bush the authority he sought in the most explicit and sweeping war-making power given a president in nearly half a century.

The United States, in coalition with Great Britain, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries, succeeded in liberating Kuwait with a devastating, U.S.-led air campaign that lasted slightly more than a month. It was followed by a massive invasion of Kuwait and Iraq by armored and airborne infantry forces. With their superior speed, mobility, and firepower, the allied forces overwhelmed the Iraqi forces in a land campaign lasting only 100 hours.

The victory, however, was incomplete and unsatisfying. The U.N. resolution, which Bush enforced to the letter, called only for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein remained in power, savagely repressing the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, both of whom the United States had encouraged to rebel. Hundreds of oil-well fires, deliberately set in Kuwait by the Iraqis, took until November 1991 to extinguish. Saddam's regime also apparently thwarted U.N. inspectors who, operating in accordance with Security Council resolutions, worked to locate and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear facilities more advanced than had previously been suspected and huge stocks of chemical weapons.

The Gulf War enabled the United States to persuade the Arab states, Israel, and a Palestinian delegation to begin direct negotiations aimed at resolving the complex and interlocked issues that could eventually lead to a lasting peace in the region. The talks began in Madrid, Spain, on October 30, 1991. In turn, they set the stage for the secret negotiations in Norway that led to what at the time seemed a historic agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, signed at the White House on September 13, 1993.

PANAMA AND NAFTA

The president also received broad bipartisan congressional backing for the brief U.S. invasion of Panama on December 20, 1989, that deposed dictator General Manuel Antonio Noriega. In the 1980s, addiction to crack cocaine reached epidemic proportions, and President Bush put the "War on Drugs" at the center of his domestic agenda. Moreover, Noriega, an especially brutal dictator, had attempted to maintain himself in power with rather crude displays of anti-Americanism. After seeking refuge in the Vatican embassy, Noriega turned himself over to U.S. authorities. He was later tried and convicted in U.S. federal court in Miami, Florida, of drug trafficking and racketeering.

On the economic front, the Bush administration negotiated the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada. It would be ratified after an intense debate in the first year of the Clinton administration.
THIRD-PARTY AND INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES

The United States is often thought of as functioning under a two-party system. In practical effect this is true: Either a Democrat or a Republican has occupied the White House every year since 1852. At the same time, however, the country has produced a plethora of third and minor parties over the years. For example, 58 parties were represented on at least one state ballot during the 1992 presidential elections. Among these were obscure parties such as the Apathy, the Looking Back, the New Mexico Prohibition, the Tish Independent Citizens, and the Vermont Taxpayers.

Third parties organize around a single issue or set of issues. They tend to fare best when they have a charismatic leader. With the presidency out of reach, most seek a platform to publicize their political and social concerns.

Theodore Roosevelt. The most successful third-party candidate of the 20th century was a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, the former president. His Progressive or Bull Moose Party won 27.4 percent of the vote in the 1912 election. The progressive wing of the Republican Party, having grown disenchanted with President William Howard Taft, whom Roosevelt had hand-picked as his successor, urged Roosevelt to seek the party nomination in 1912. This he did, defeating Taft in a number of primaries. Taft controlled the party machinery, however, and secured the nomination.

Roosevelt's supporters then broke away and formed the Progressive Party. Declaring himself as fit as a bull moose (hence the party's popular name), Roosevelt campaigned on a platform of regulating "big business," women's suffrage, a graduated income tax, the Panama Canal, and conservation. His effort was sufficient to defeat Taft. By splitting the Republican vote, however, he helped ensure the election of the Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Socialists. The Socialist Party also reached its high point in 1912, attaining 6 percent of the popular vote. Perennial candidate Eugene Debs won nearly 900,000 votes that year, advocating collective ownership of the transportation and communication industries, shorter working hours, and public works projects to spur employment. Convicted of sedition during World War I, Debs campaigned from his cell in 1920.

Robert LaFollette. Another Progressive was Senator Robert La Follette, who won more than 16 percent of the vote in the 1924 election. Long a champion of farmers and industrial workers, and an ardent foe of big business, La Follette was a prime mover in the recreation of the Progressive movement following World War I. Backed by the farm and labor vote, as well as by Socialists and remnants of Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, La Follette ran on a platform of nationalizing railroads and the country's natural resources. He also strongly supported increased taxation on the wealthy and the right of collective bargaining. He carried only his home state of Wisconsin.

Henry Wallace. The Progressive Party reinvented itself in 1948 with the nomination of Henry Wallace, a former secretary of agriculture and vice president under Franklin Roosevelt. Wallace's 1948 platform opposed the Cold War, the Marshall Plan, and big business. He also campaigned to end discrimination against African Americans and women, backed a minimum wage, and called for the elimination of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. His failure to repudiate the U.S. Communist Party, which had endorsed him, undermined his popularity and he wound up with just over 2.4 percent of the popular vote.

Dixiecrats. Like the Progressives, the States Rights or Dixiecrat Party, led by South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond, emerged in 1948 as a spinoff from the Democratic Party. Its opposition stemmed from Truman's civil rights platform. Although defined in terms of "states' rights," the party's goal was continuing racial segregation and the "Jim Crow" laws that sustained it.

George Wallace. The racial and social upheavals of the 1960s helped bring George Wallace, another segregationist Southern governor, to national attention. Wallace built a following through his colorful attacks against civil rights, liberals, and the federal government. Founding the American Independent Party in 1968, he ran his campaign from the statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama, winning 13.5 percent of the overall presidential vote.

H. Ross Perot. Every third party seeks to capitalize on popular dissatisfaction with the major parties and the federal government. At few times in recent history, however, has this sentiment been as strong as it was during the 1992 election. A hugely wealthy Texas businessman, Perot possessed a knack for getting his message of economic common sense and fiscal responsibility across to a wide spectrum of the people. Lampooning the nation's leaders and reducing his economic message to easily understood formulas, Perot found little difficulty gaining media attention. His campaign organization, United We Stand, was staffed primarily by volunteers and backed by his personal fortune. Far from resenting his wealth, many admired Perot's business success and the freedom it brought him from soliciting campaign funds from special interests. Perot withdrew from the race in July. Re-entering it a month before the election, he won over 19 million votes as the Reform Party standard-bearer, nearly 19 percent of the total cast. This was by far the largest number ever tallied by a third-party candidate and second only to Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 showing as a percentage of the total.

Lying to America











Saturday, June 23, 2007

Bohemian Grove Roster Sent Anonymously to Infowars



Membership List Reveals Former Presidents, Host of Academics and NWO Operators

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | June 22, 2007

An interesting package came into the Infowars mailbox recently-- sent anonymously with no return address-- but the contents revealed the reason for secrecy. Someone has shipped our office the 2006 membership roster for the secretive and exclusive Bohemian Grove, which Alex Jones infiltrated and exposed in 2000.

A number of high profile elites appear on the list, including David Rockefeller (and son), Henry Kissinger, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, David Gergen (who Alex Jones confronted about his grove membership), Colin Powell, George P. Shultz, Donald Rumsfeld and even Kenneth Starr, who gained attention after prosecuting Bill Clinton.

See a 1981 news report on the grove.

Many U.S. Presidents have gone to the grove, but most do not appear on the membership roster, though we know that Reagan, Nixon (both pictured below at the Grove), George W. Bush, Herbert Hoover and many other presidents have also attended but are not listed, as is the case for presidential advisor Karl Rove.


Former Presidents Reagan and Nixon at Bohemian Grove

Walter Cronkite, the infamous and notable TV journalist, is also a member and listed in the directory. The 'P' next to his name denotes "Regular - Professional." Also listed is the King of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf.

Beyond Presidents and elite world controllers, the exclusive male-only club has obviously used the appeal of the retreat to influence the world of academia-- at least 50 well-known universities are represented at Bohemian Grove, including almost every school in California, at least any that come to mind. The members-- which includes listings of older and deceased members who no longer attend-- are influential faculty members, board members, trustees or presidents of universities.

Stanford University with 17 members and U.C. Berkeley with 19 members, were the most heavily represented schools. (See members from academia below-- note: only those members with schools listed by their name were counted as academia, with many other members listed by city and name or only by name).

Stanford University (David Michael Kelley, David Beaven Abernethy, Michael J. Boskin, David W. Brady, Carlos A. Camargo, James P. Collman, Thomas H. Henriksen, Ken Jowitt [Hoover Institute], Michael A. Keller, Arjay Miller, Charles G. Palm, John Raisian, Channing Rex Robertson, D.A. Skoog ["Old Guard" member in 1964], John B. Taylor, Bill Walsh, Pete Wilson [Hoover Institute]),

U.C. Berkeley (Walter Alvarez, Jesse H. Choper, Charles Faulhaber, Michael A. Harrison, Andrew G. Jameson, Howard R. Katz, Watson M. Laetsch, Hayne E. Leland, Donald A. McQuade, Charles H. Mel, Richard A. Muller, Kevin Padian, Thomas H. Pigford, P. Buford Price, Vincent H. Resh, Arthur H. Rosenfeld, George W. Rutherford, David A. Shirley [Emeritus], Charles H. Townes),

OTHER UNIVERSITIES IN CALIFORNIA: Claremont-McKenna, (Jack L. Stark),Pepperdine University (Charles B. Runnels, Kenneth W. Starr), CA Institute of Technology (David Baltimore, Charles Elachi), U.S.C. (Shelton Berg, Michael L. Garrett, Brian E. Henderson, M.D. [School of Medicine], Stephen J. Ryan, Steven B. Sample), Scripps College, Claremont, CA (John H. Chandler [member since 1983), U.C. Irvine (Robert C. Combs), U.C. Davis (Arthur H. Smith, Lloyd H. Smith, Jim L. Sochor [Emeritus], Joe P. Tupin, Larry N. Vanderhoef, Julian R. Youmans), University of the Pacific (Donald V. De Rosa), California Academy of Science (Robert C. Drewes), U.C. Hastings School of Law (Geoffrey C. Hazard, William T. Hutton, Frederick W. Lambert, Stephen A. Lind), U.C. Santa Barbara (Robert A. Huttenback), University of California (Hugh D. McNiven, Rudi Schmid), Scripps Institute, UCSD (Charles F. Kennel), CA Academy of Sciences (John P. Kociolek), UCLA (James Q. Wilson [also Harvard emeritus]), U.C. San Francisco (Jay A. Levy, Robert G. Miller, Ronald D. Miller, William R. Murray, Stanley B. Prusiner, Arthur N. Thomas), University of San Francisco (John LoSchiavo, John P. Schlegel), SF State University (John E. McCosker, Arthur Mejia), S.F. Conservatory of Music (Colin Murdoch), Cal State University (Ward M. McAfee), Harvey Mudd College (Joseph Platt), U.C. San Diego (Kirk L. Peterson), Santa Clara University (Peter O'Malley Pierson)

UNIVERSITIES OTHER THAN IN CALIFORNIA: Princeton University (Orley Clark Ashenfeler), Universit of WA (Thomas L. Bosworth, Edward D. Verrier), Yale Uninversity (Gerad N. Burrow), University of Calgary (Barry Cooper), Vermont Law School (Douglas M. Costle), Bates College, ME (Edward S. Harwood), Universite Paris (Bertrand Jacquillat), University VA Law School (Charles W. Johnson), Sante Fe Institute (Edward A. Knapp), University of Texas (Bobby Ray Inman, Darwin R. Labarthe, Jeffrey C. Smith), University of Maryland (John Lenczowski), University of Nevada-Reno (Warren L. Lerude), Morehouse College (Walter E. Massey), Howard University (Kurt L. Schmoke), Rockefeller University (Frederick Seitz [labeled as "old guard"; obtained membership in 1966], Wake Forest University (James F. Toole), Duke University Law School (Francis E. McGovern), University of North Carolina (David F. Merten), Amherst College (Joseph G. Moore), Syracuse University (Sean O'Keefe), Columbia University (Ralph M. Richart), Middlebury College (John Spencer), Oberlin College (S. Frederick Starr), George Mason University, VA (Walter E. Williams)

The list of notables also includes a number of foreign dignitaries and heads of institutes throughout the U.S. and abroad. Notable Bohemian Grove member Helmut Schmidt, who wrote about his love for the club in his autobiography, Men and Powers, is not listed in 2006 volume.

Institute of International Education (founded in 1919, in the same time-frame of the League of Nations and the C.F.R.) (Richard M. Krasno)

One of the world's foremost oceanographers, Robert D. Ballard-- who made his name investigating the wreckage of the Titanic, the Bismarck and other famous ships, is listed as representing the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, a member since September 12, 1991. Robert Berj Gagosian also represents Wood Hole.

Bobby Ray Inman, former head of the NSA and defamed candidate for Secretary of Defense under Clinton, now at the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs in Austin, TX.

Christopher C. DeMuth of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

Edwin J. Feulner, Jr. and Edwin Meese III of The Heritage Foundation.

James A. Kelly of the Pacific Forum CSIS in Honolulu.

Consul General of Japan, Makoto Yamanaka

Dennis M. Power, Director of the Oakland Museum

Fmr. Surgeon General of the U.S., Richard Carmona (term: 2002-July 2006)

Consular Mexico - Alfonso de Maria y Campos

The Consul General of Luxembourg, Robert Biwer.

Also, the Indian Ambassador to the U.S., K Shankar Bajpai (Jan 25, 1968), also a CFR member.

I've also included the so-called 'LIST OF FIFTY' a list honoring regular attendees, though few of the names stand out on first pass. 'Honorary Associates' and 'Honorary Regulars' are also distinguished in the 104-page directory with thousands of names.

Notably, in addition to the anonymous shipping of this directory, Alex Jones received a call at his home from the BOHEMIAN GROVE, which was listed on caller-id, but no one identified themselves. It is not clear if this member roster was sent by an employee of the Grove, a member or came to this office through other means.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Death of Freemasonry

It has long been believe that Freemasons rule the world, and look to bring in a New World Order.
In this article I hope to dispel these theories and show how Freemasonry was demonized by another secret group of men to make Freemasons forget why they are Freemasons and destroy their image in America.

Freemasonry started in the earliest of times, (as some like to think the Times of King Solomon) with stone masons. This men were the smartest men on earth, being able to carve into stone angles never before seen by men. This men only used 3 major tools, The Level, the Compass, and the Square. The story goes that 3 non-master masons wanted the secret word of the Master Mason in order to obtain the secrets of the craft of masonry and so they could also obtain the wages of a master mason. The men were told, you will receive the word of the Master Mason when the project is done. These men did not want to wait any longer, so they devised a plan to extort the word from the Master Mason. The 3 men each hid at one of the 3 entrances of building. As the Master Mason came in to the first entrance, he was assaulted by the first man. The man demanded the word of a Master Mason, the master would not give it, so the first man cut the masters chest,
but the master got away. When the master entered the second entrance, he was assaulted by the second man, again asked for the word of the Master Mason, the master would not give it, the second man cut the masters throat. The master was able to get away from the second man, but very badly wounded and stumbled to the third entrance. The third man was awaiting the master at the third entrance and demanded the word of the Master Mason, but again the master would not give it. The third man then hit the master in the head with the corner of a sharp object (it is not fully clear what that object was). The point of this, is for the reader
to understand where the rituals of the Freemason come from, and will be fully explain latter in this article.

So now we know where Freemasons get their rituals from, but yet the Freemason today, doesn't truly understand what a true Freemason is and where he comes from, I will explain this shortly.

Now we will talk about the brilliant minds of the late 1600's as it is hard to pinpoint when and where the Freemason first entered with Stone Masons, but it is believe it happened in or around the time of Roman/Jesus times. But what is known is that Fran├žois-Marie Arouet (aka Voltaire) was a Master Mason, and a French Enlightenment writer, essayist, deist and philosopher known for his wit, philosophical sport, and defense of civil liberties, including freedom of religion
and the right to a fair trial. He was an outspoken supporter of social reform despite strict censorship laws in France and harsh penalties for those who broke them. A satirical polemicist, he frequently made use of his works to criticize Christian Church dogma and the French institutions of his day.

It is believe in this time, such way of thinking was wrong, and evil. So men of such minds had to find a way to be able to freely talk about anything they wished with out worry of prosecution. These men found the Stone Masons and found that the Stone Masons liked and enjoyed these men's thoughts. So these men were taught the secret hand shakes and words of the stone mason to use to identify themselves from non-free thinkers.

The first Masonic Grand Lodge was established in England in 1717 as the Premier Grand Lodge of England. Now let's think about something, around this time men were overly tired of being taxed to death and yes some of these masons were the thinkers that devised the plan to break away from England and create their own country based of Freedom and Liberty.

So now we jump to America, where masons have already been living before the pilgrims came here. Our founding father masons were still under the control of England and they had had enough. So these mean devised a plan, The Boston Tea party, was devised by masons to start the war with England. Around 1776 another group was founded by the name of Bavarian Illuminati, now here is where it get interesting. The Illuminati, made of of Freemasons were radical thinkers, and power hungry. These men tried to talk Washington into becoming the first King of America, but Washington said, "Do you think I fought King George III to become King George the first?",
and sense he was so popular with the people of this land, he was voted in as First President of
America. This shows true Free masonic values, and integrity. Now the Illuminati didn't like this, they wanted George Washing to be a King, so that they could later take control. Sense this didn't happen they devised a plan to demonize Freemasonry and they succeeded! It was thought that the Illuminati was disbanded by the Freemasons, but this was untrue, just like the big thinkers of old, they hide from every one but then reappeared later as "The Brotherhood of Death" also now known as "Skull and Bones". The Yale Bones catalogs indicate that Skull and Bones began in the U.S. in the 3rd decade of the second period of the organization. The first decade of the second period would be 1800 with the first period being 1790-1800: "That places us in the time frame of the elimination of Illuminati by the Bavarian Elector. The Illuminati, who at the time were Freemasons, killed another Freemason by the name of William Morgan in 1826, as it turned out, all the men that were involved in this plot were found not guilty of the murder. After this took place, many began to believe that the Freemasons were not compatible with society. As a result, the Anti-Masonic Party was formed. This party was surprisingly strong, running against the National Republicans, a rival political party. At first, they were mainly active in New York. By 1832, the movement spread and became a powerful party in Pennsylvania and Vermont. In fact, the party became so successful in Vermont that William A. Palmer was elected governor of Vermont while running on an Anti-Mason ticket.

Now we can start to see the full picture of why Freemasons are looked down on in America today. The Illuminati had pulled off there plan with precision. The Freemason's memberships drop in dramatic numbers, making it so that Freemasons wouldn't even admit they were Freemasons. It is also interesting to note that around this time, Freemasons had seem to have lost the true nature of being a Freemason. The right to free thought and expression with-in the lodges had seemed to be banned, as it is today, Freemasons are told we are not allowed to talk about politics, religion etc etc in the lodge, when it had been done for many years before. This also was the plan of the Illuminati. Not only were the Freemasons seen as evil, but they also lost the true meaning of Freemasonry, basically killing Freemasonry itself. Sense this time, began the rise of the other degrees, to father confuse the Freemason and the public. As a Freemason, after you have reached the 3rd degree you are told, this is the only degree that matters, cause no other degree is higher (in rank, etc etc) than a Master Mason. How ever this doesn't stop one from learning more about their craft if they wish, but because one learns more about the craft, it doesn't make them any better than a Master Mason, just like in the Stone Mason days. Once a Master Mason you have all the instructions you need to do your work and make wages. The Illuminati would have you believe that Freemasons control the world, but if you look at even the normal people that are 32 or 33 degree are on par average people with no political connections. It is my mission to bring this to the attention of other Freemason who may have lost their way and been brainwashed into forgetting why Freemasonry was founded in the first place. The only reason we as Freemasons do not bring Religion into the lodge is to prevent free thinking, but the Illuminati as taken it a few steps further by adding politics to the rules, which even further kills free thought!

As a Freemason, this makes me as mad as hell! I still believe in the founding father Freemason that fought for freedom and liberty and I will for as long as I am allowed by the Illuminati to live, and I will continue to spread this message to anyone willing to hear it.

In Closing I would like to also say that, to our oath, if any bother asks me to do anything that will help destroy what our founding fathers fought for, I will not help them! We as Freemasons already had our NEW WORLD ORDER, which was Freedom and Liberty, and now the Illuminati wishes to destroy it for their own personal gains! It is up to every true free thinking man to break out of this left-right paradigm and wake up to the sheet that has been pulled over our eyes and fight this tyranny and injustice before the Illuminati "New World Order" is in full effect.

"Those People who are not governed by GOD will be ruled by tyrants."
William Penn, Founder of the English colony of Pennsylvania, had an enlightened attitude for his time in regards to religious tolerance and
in his dealings with Native Americans. Courtesy, Library of Congress.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington 3rd Degree Master Mason

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Credit cards cut off gas purchases


A customer swipes his credit card at a gas station pump in Morganton, N.C., Friday, June 15, 2007. As the price of gasoline continues to rise, rules to prevent credit card fraud at the nation's pumps are confusing consumers who just want a full tank of gas. Caps on transaction amounts or the total dollar amount of gas a customer can pump into their car are limiting some drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton)

By IEVA M. AUGSTUMS, AP Business Writer Fri Jun 15, 11:41 PM ET

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - So you're at the gas station filling up your vehicle, and without warning the gas pump shuts off. What? The tank isn't full, and you know your credit card isn't over its limit.

"Using my Visa card, I commonly hit a limit and I would be standing there scratching my head," Shawn Bloomfield, who pumps premium gas into his SUV, said from his home in Allentown, Pa. "I would always assume it is the gas station setting a limit on how much gas I could purchase. It felt like a ration scenario."

As the price of gasoline continues to rise, rules to prevent credit card fraud at the nation's pumps are confusing consumers who just want a full tank of gas.

Caps on transaction amounts — or the total dollar amount of gas a customer can pump into their car — are limiting some drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles.

"When I go to the gas station I now have to use two credit cards just for one tank of gas," said Paul Brisgone of Oxford, Pa. "Kind of defeats the convenience of pay-at-the-pump."

Brisgone, a field operations manager for a telecommunications company, said he alternates between three different credit cards — two Visa and one MasterCard — when filling up the 32-gallon tank in his Ford F-150 pickup.

"When I can go 400 miles a day, it inconveniences me if I need a full tank of gas and can't get one," Brisgone said.

Credit card companies say the policies, which aren't new, are designed to ensure that merchants and consumers are protected from fraudulent transactions that could occur at a gas pump.

When a customer uses their credit card at a cardholder-activated terminal, such as a gas pump, the transaction is authorized without knowing the final bill of sale.

Typically, consumers who use their credit card are not liable for any fraudulent purchases, and gas merchants are not liable either.

But credit card companies have established a protective layer by setting caps on how much gas a consumer can pump at any one given time.

That means in the event of any fraud, "the merchant is protected from bearing the cost of the fraudulent transaction," said MasterCard spokeswoman Joanne Trout.

But only up to a certain amount.

For MasterCard customers, it's $75. Visa and Discover users have a $50 pay-at-the-pump limit. Transaction limits vary for corporate card holders and American Express users.

Not all gas stations have to abide by the cap. And there are no limits if a customer goes inside and pays with their credit card at the counter.

The caps went unnoticed when gasoline prices were low.

"We get more calls, questions, when gas prices increase," said Visa spokeswoman Rhonda Bentz.

The average price of regular unleaded gasoline increased from $1.50 a gallon at the start of the decade to $2.28 a gallon in 2005, according to the American Automobile Association.

Today, gasoline prices are topping $3 a gallon.

"Yes, it's an inconvenience," said Bloomfield, who often reaches his $50 limit when filling up his Nissan Pathfinder. "I guess you could say it's a necessary inconvenience for more secure transactions."

____________________________________________________________________

Ok let's talk about what this really means! Try to stay with me as I walk you through this propaganda matrix of lies and deceit.

Don't be fooled by the "It's the cost of gas, and fraud by credit card thief's, that we have added this new "Security" measure to protect our card holders." What this really is, is an attempt to trick gas buyers into using the new "ID DEBT CARD". That's right, it is a lie and they will get some of you.

You can now sign up to use your Drivers Licenes to buy gas and save on average .10$ per gallon.
Sound like a wonderful idea? Well don't be fooled! There are a few things you need to know about this.

1. This is leading American's into a cashless society
2. Using the ID Card to buy anything allows "Big Brother" to see your every purchase
3. Who is to say that, "Big Brother" will not try to push this to all areas of buying?

Let me break down the scam for you.

You might be thinking to yourself, "Why would credit card companies do this? Don't they think they will lose customers if they keep getting cut off, and lose millions of dollars?" Well my friends, that is the point. They want you to move to the "ID Card". Why you ask? Because the same people that own all the credit cards, also own the Federal Reserve! That's right, you may have never thought about it before, but it is true.

Visa is a brand of credit card and debit card operated by the Visa International Service Association of San Francisco, California, USA, an economic joint venture of 21,000 financial institutions that issue and market Visa products.

MasterCard is a membership organization owned by the 25,000+ financial institutions that issue its card. MasterCard is also the company's brand of credit cards. It was originally created by United California Bank, Wells Fargo, Crocker National Bank, and the Bank of California as a competitor to the BankAmericard issued by Bank of America. BankAmericard is now the VISA credit card, issued by Visa International.

And where do they get all their money from and are protected by? That's right The Federal Reserve! There is one place I have found on the internet where you can sign up for this and it is called Rollback Price and you can see who owns it here.

Alex Jones recently had Joe Randazza on his show and Randazza admitted on the show that the funds are tracked by the Federal Reserve, which points back to my earlier points.

The credit card companies all work for the Federal Reserve, just like this ID Debit plan.
This is nothing more than an attempt for the Federal Reserve to monopolize it's power by forcibly down sizes the other competitors, which they own. Once they get every one on the new plan, the card will become a part of the National Sales Tax. Once this is standerd, they will start telling us that people are breaking the rules and we need somethign that is tamper proof, the only thing left is.... gulp..... RFID Implants.

They have them, and have been talking about using them for tracking immigrants, and don't for a minute think they will not try to push it on us afterwards. If you are smart you will head the warnings people like me and others are putting out there and do not take on this new ID Debit Card. Call your congress memebrs and tell then to put an end to these companies befor it is to late. You can make a difference, all you have to do is voice it!

(9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Evacuated

(9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Evacuated

According to a soldier at the scene, WTC Building 7 is evacuated before the second tower is hit. [Fort Detrick Standard, 18 October 2001.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Fort Detrick Standard, 10/18/2001] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) states, “As the second aircraft struck WTC 2, a decision was made to evacuate WTC 7.” This would be just after the Port Authority Police Department called for the evacuation of the entire WTC complex (see 8:59 a.m.-9:02 a.m. September 11, 2001). But by this time, “many WTC 7 occupants [have] already left the building and others [have] begun a self-evacuation of the building.” [Federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster: The emergency response operations, report prepared by J. Randall Lawson + Robert L. Vettori, 109.')" onmouseout="return nd()">National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 109 pdf file] All individuals in the Secret Service’s New York field office, located in WTC 7, were ordered to evacuate after the first attack, and they are in the process of doing so when the second plane hits the South Tower. [PCCW Newsletter, “Spotlight on: Barbara Riggs,” March 2006.')" onmouseout="return nd()">PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006] The Secret Service has a Stinger missile secretly stored in the WTC, to be used to protect the president if there were an attack on the city when he visits it. [The man who warned America: The life and death of John O\'Neill, the FBI\'s embattled counterterror warrior (New York: Regan Books, 2003)., 379.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Weiss, 2003, pp. 379] Presumably, this missile is abandoned with the evacuation. The Office of Emergency Management’s command center, on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, is not evacuated until later, at 9:30 a.m. (see 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001).

Suicide seed food weapons being readied for deployment

From the September 2006 Idaho Observer:


Suicide seed food weapons being readied for deployment

Monsanto buys "Terminator" seed company

We are familiar with the "terminator" seed concept: Genetically engineered and patented crop species that do not produce viable seed for replanting. We are also aware of the implications should farmers be made dependent upon the likes of Monsanto to provide the seeds needed to plant the fields that produce the food for people and livestock. But most of us have many "gaps" in our understanding of who is behind this diabolical agenda. The following article fills in those gaps.

by F. William Engdahl

Feds began sowing seeds of destruction in the early 80s

The U.S. government has been financing research on genetic engineering technology which, when commercialized, will give its owners the power to control the food seed of entire nations or regions. The government has been working quietly on this technology since 1983. Now, the little-known company that has been collaborating in this genetic research with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)�Delta & Pine Land (D&PL)�is about to become part of the world�s largest supplier of seeds for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) patented by the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri.

Relations between Monsanto, D&PL and the USDA, on closer scrutiny, show the deep and dark side of the much-heralded genetic revolution in agriculture. It proves deep-held suspicions that the "gene revolution" is not about "solving the world hunger problem" as its advocates claim. It�s about handing over control of the seeds for mankind�s basic food supply�rice, corn, soybeans, wheat, even fruit, vegetables and cotton�to privately owned corporations. Once the seeds and their use are patented and controlled by one or several private agribusiness multinationals, it will be they who decide whether or not a particular customer�let�s say for argument, China or Brazil or India or Japan�will or won�t get the patented seeds from Monsanto, or from one of its licensee GMO partners like Bayer Crop Sciences, Syngenta or DuPont�s Pioneer Hi-Bred International.

"Suicide" seeds

Most of us don�t bother to reflect on where the corn in the box of Kellogg�s Corn Flakes or the rice in a box of Uncle Ben�s Converted Rice come from. Therefore, we must be reminded that plant-based food products on supermarket shelves began as seeds.

Historically, farmers have two crop propagation choices: They can either plant their crops with seeds held over from the previous years� harvests or they can be bought from seed companies.

The advent of commercial GMO seeds in the early 1990s allowed companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical to go from supplying agricultural chemical herbicides like Roundup, to patenting genetically altered seeds for staple farm crops like corn, rice, soybeans or wheat. Since 1983, the U.S. government has quietly been working to genetically-engineer crops that would produce one harvest with seeds that would not be viable for saving and future planting. Farmers would then be forced to depend upon seed suppliers each year to provide the seeds needed to plant their fields.

There has been much hue and cry, correctly so, that this process, patented "suicide" seeds, officially termed "GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies)," is a threat to poor farmers in developing countries like India or Brazil, who traditionally save their own seeds for the next planting. In fact, GURTs, more popularly referred to as "Terminator" seeds for the brutal manner in which they kill off plant reproduction possibilities, is a threat to the food security of the regions mentioned above, North America, Western Europe, Asia and anywhere Monsanto and its elite cartel of GMO agribusiness partners occupy a market.

Terminator plants are genetically engineered to produce sterile seed. By inserting a series of "promoter" and "marker" genes and gene switches, it is possible to switch on or off the sterility of crops at the molecular level by applying chemicals to the plant. Seed can be harvested but not saved as a source for the next planting without the repeated use of a chemical inducer.

Differences of opinion

In the first terminator patents from D&PL and USDA in 1998, a specific chemical triggers a genetically-engineered suicide mechanism. The trigger is the antibiotic tetracycline applied to the seeds. The result is that the next generation of seeds is dead.

Harry Collins, vice-president of D&PL, gave the PR sell version for Terminator back in 1998. He argued, "The centuries old practice of farmer-saved seed is really a gross disadvantage to Third World farmers who inadvertently become locked into obsolete varieties because of their taking the �easy road� and not planting newer, more productive varieties."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Crucible Group, which includes the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, puts "Terminator" into a wider context: "The monopoly control afforded by �Terminator Technology� goes far beyond patents and threatens national sovereignty. A patent is a time-limited, legal monopoly granted by a government in exchange for societal benefits. In the case of the �Terminator�, the biological monopoly is not time-limited, and is not necessarily approved by national governments."

The Curious History of D&PL

D&PL is a company that, despite the pine in its name, has deep roots. Founded in 1888, it has its headquarters at One Cotton Row in Scott, Mississippi, nestled between Goat Island and Choktaw Bar Island on the Mississippi River, near the Arkansas border. However, the people running D&PL are not your typical Mississippi black-dirt cotton farmers.

In 1983, D&PL joined with the USDA in a project to develop Terminator seeds. It was one of the earliest experiments with GMO. It was a long-term project.

In March 1998 the U.S. Patent Office granted Patent No. 5,723,765 to D&PL for a patent titled, "Control of Plant Gene Expression." The patent is owned jointly, according to D&PL�s Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) 10K filing, "by D&PL and the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture."

The patent has global coverage. To quote further from the official D&PL SEC filing, "The patent broadly covers all species of plant and seed, both transgenic (GMO-ed) and conventional, for a system designed to allow control of progeny seed viability without harming the crop" (sic).

Then, in a manner reminiscent of Big Brother in George Orwell�s novel, 1984, D&PL claims, "One application of the technology could be to control unauthorized planting of seed of proprietary varieties�by making such a practice non-economic since non-authorized saved seed will not germinate, and, therefore, would be useless for planting."

D&PL calls the thousand-year-old tradition of farmer-saved seed by the pejorative term, "brown bagging" as though it is something dirty and corrupt.

Toward a global food production monopoly

Translated into lay language, D&PL officially declares the purpose of its Patent No. 5,723,765, Control of Plant Gene Expression, is to prevent farmers who once get trapped into buying transgenic or GMO seeds from a company such as Monsanto or Syngenta, from "brown bagging" or being able to break free of control of their future crops by Monsanto and friends. As D&PL puts it, their patent gives them "the prospect of opening significant worldwide seed markets to the sale of transgenic technology in varietal crops in which crop seed currently is saved and used in subsequent seasons as planting seed."

Instead, the farmer or the country whose farmers depend on Monsanto-patented GMO seeds must pay a license fee to Monsanto each year to get new seeds. "No tickee, no laundy," as the old Brooklyn poet would say.

Terminator is the answer to the agribusiness dream of controlling world food production. No longer would it need to hire expensive detectives to spy on whether farmers were re-using Monsanto or other GMO patented seed. Terminator corn, soybean or cotton seeds could be genetically modified to "commit suicide" after one harvest season. That would automatically prevent farmers from saving and re-using the seed for the next harvest. The technology would be a means of enforcing Monsanto or other GMO patent-holders� rights and forcing payment of farmer use fees not only in developing economies, where patent rights were, understandably, little respected, but also in developed countries.

With Terminator patent rights, once countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Iraq, the USA or Canada opened its doors to the spread of GMO patented seeds among its farmers, their food security would be potentially hostage to private multinational companies�companies that have intimate ties to the U.S. government and could potentially use food as a "weapon" to compel countries� cooperation with U.S.-friendly policies.

Sound far-fetched? Go back to what then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did in countries like Allende�s Chile to force a regime change to a "U.S.-friendly" Pinochet dictatorship by withholding USAID and private food exports to Chile. Kissinger dubbed the tactic, "food as a weapon."

Terminator is merely the logical next step in food weapon technology.

Under threat of sanction

The role of the U.S. government in backing and financing D&PL�s decades of Terminator research is even more revealing. As Kissinger said back in the 1970s, "Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people�"

In a June, 1998 interview, USDA spokesman Willard Phelps defined the U.S. government policy on Terminator seeds. He explained that USDA wanted the technology to be, "widely licensed and made expeditiously available to many seed companies."

The "seed companies" to which he is referring are agribusiness GMO giants like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow. The USDA was open about its reasons: It wanted to get Terminator seeds into the developing world where the Rockefeller Foundation had made eventual proliferation of genetically engineered crops the heart of its GMO strategy from the beginnings of its rice genome project in 1984.

USDA�s Phelps stated that the U.S. government�s goal in fostering the widest possible development of Terminator technology was "to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by U.S. seed companies and to open up new markets in Second and Third World countries."

Under WTO rules on free trade in agriculture, countries are forbidden to impose their own national health restrictions on GMO imports if it is deemed to be an "unfair trade barrier."

It begins to become clear why the U.S. government and U.S. agribusiness, during the late 1980s, pushed at the GATT Uruguay Round for creation of a World Trade Organization, with its supranational arbitrary powers over world agriculture trade. It all fits into a neat picture of patented seeds, forced on reluctant WTO member nations, under threat of WTO sanctions�and now these same pressures will be applied to all nations, forcing them to purchase Terminator (suicide) seeds.

A closer look at who runs and owns D&PL is instructive.

Arkansas politics and D&PL

The largest shareholder in D&PL is the Stephens Group of Little Rock, Arkansas. Here is where things become interesting indeed.

The man who is Chairman of the Board of DP&L is Jon E.M. Jacoby, who came to DP&L as representative of the Stephens Group. Jacoby is a director and vice-chairman of The Stephens Group, LLC, the Arkansas-based private equity firm owned by the Stephens family.

The Stephens Group prides itself on being the nation�s largest investment bank outside Wall Street, based, of all places, in little ol� Little Rock, in hillbilly land, Arkansas, one of the poorest states in the United States. Stephens Inc., is also one of the biggest institutional shareholders in 30 large multinationals, including the Arkansas-based firms Tyson Food, the world�s largest chicken industrial factory operation and the infamous Arkansas giant, Wal-Mart.

Jackson Stephens, who founded the group with his brother, Witt, were more than just lucky Arkansas bankers and billionaires. Stephens evidently built his career and fortune by being connected to the "right" people. He was a U.S. Naval Academy classmate of Jimmy Carter and during the Georgia bank scandals of President Carter�s Office of Management & Budget chief, Bert Lance. It was Jack Stephens who stepped in to bail Lance out of an extremely embarrassing financial debacle with Lance�s old bank, National Bank of Georgia.

The BCCI connection

How Stephens helped Jimmy Carter�s fellow Georgia buddy, Lance, is the interesting part. Stephens introduced Lance to a Pakistani businessman, Agha Hasan Abedi. Abedi was the founder of the curious Luxembourg-registered, London-based Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI).

In 1990, BCCI was convicted of money laundering for the Columbian Cocaine Cartels in Miami.

Jackson Stephens was no casual business acquaintance of BCCI�s Agha Hasan Abedi. In response to the concerns over Jackson Stephens� involvement in BCCI, the Ohio Attorney General noted in a 1993 report, "Stephens� name has been linked to securities violations that allegedly occurred when the Bank of Commerce and Credit International, a foreign bank dominated by Pakistani financier Agha Hasan Abedi, [that] acquired stock and control over the Washington-based First American Bank."

In 1991, Stephens joined BCCI investor Mochtar Riady in buying BCCI�s former Hong Kong subsidiary from its liquidators.

The Stephens Group was well-connected to another interesting Asian banking group, the billionaire Indonesian Riady family of Moktar and his son James Riady, who own the Lippo Bank in Indonesia. The Riadys are Chinese-Indonesian businessmen who, of all places, moved to Arkansas in the 1970s, despite holding billions of assets in Asia. Stephens and Riady hit it off and soon Stephens and Riady bought a bank in Hong Kong. Stephens then invited Riady to invest in a Little Rock, Arkansas bank called "Worthen."

BCCI and Jackson Stephens, chairman of the Stephens Group of Arkansas, were well known to one another. Stephens Group board member Jon E.M. Jacoby, today Chairman of D&PL and still a vice-director of The Stephens Group, was a very senior, trusted member of the Stephens� inside circle for more than 35 years.

Jackson Stephens� Stephens Group financially staked Sam Walton when he started Wal-Mart in 1970. Stephens also financed Tyson Foods to become the agribusiness global giant it is today. Jon Jacoby, as senior executive of the Stephens Group, had arranged the 1970 Wal-Mart deal. Jon E.M. Jacoby and Jackson Stephens went way back.

Stephens Group, Tyson Farms and other Arkansas fairy tales

A tangled web of relations links the Stephens Group and D&PL of Scott, Mississippi, with another satellite in the agribusiness orbit of the influential Stephens Group. The Stephens Group is also linked intimately with Arkansas-based Tyson Foods, the U.S.� largest agribusiness processor of industrialized chicken meat�and arguably one of its most unsanitary ones.

Tyson Foods curiously emerged from the recent Avian Flu (H5N1) virus scare as a winner, using the lie that their factory farm mass-bred assembly-line chickens were more "sanitary" than free-roaming small farm chickens of Asia.

U.S. administrations, at least since the Clinton era, seem to have a love affair of some sort with Tyson Foods.

It began when Clinton sought to name an Arkansas crony, Mike Espy, to be his Secretary of Agriculture. Before Clinton could submit Espy�s name to the Senate for confirmation, however, Espy was sent to Arkansas for a meeting that would decide if Espy had the right stuff. The meeting was with Don Tyson, head of Tyson Foods.

Tyson apparently concluded that Espy indeed had the right stuff, at least as far as Tyson was concerned. Soon after being named head of USDA, Espy enacted measures significantly weakening federal chicken waste and contamination standards. That opened the floodgates for expansion of Tyson Foods chicken factory farms into the huge concentrations of chicken waste and rivers overflowing with toxic pollution in Arkansas and beyond.

The Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2003, reported an interesting fact about Clinton�s wife, Hillary. In 1978, Hillary was invited to join the powerful Little Rock law firm, Rose Law Firm, the law firm of the Stephens Group. In October, 1978, a month before husband Bill Clinton was elected Arkansas governor, Hillary began a series of commodities trades under the guidance of Tyson Foods executive Jim Blair, earning nearly $100,000. The trades were not revealed until March, 1994.

To be the corporate law firm of the Stephens Group was no casual affair. It implied a deep trust relationship and perhaps more. As one crony of Jackson Stephens put it at that time, "Jackson Stephens? He�s the man who owns Arkansas."

The head of the prestigious Rose law firm in Little Rock in those days was C. Joseph Giroir, Jr. In 1977, Giroir hired Hillary Clinton to work for Rose. It was all one cozy Arkansas-Indonesia family back then.

The Wall Street Journal went on to note that, in 1987, while Clinton was still governor, "Officials at investment giant Stephens Inc., including longtime Clinton friend, David Edwards, took steps to rescue Harken Energy, a struggling Texas oil company with George W. Bush on its board. Over the next three years, Mr. Edwards brings BCCI-linked investors and advisers into Harken deals. One of them, Abdullah Bakhsh, purchases $10 million in shares of Stephens-dominated Worthen Bank."

Jackson Stephens� political largesse was non-partisan: Democrats Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and then Republican George W. Bush, the man now in the White House as Monsanto seeks approval to take over the Stephens Group�s D&PL.

Under the Clinton presidency, agribusiness, especially agribusiness tied to the Stephens� interests, made huge advances.

Agriculture Secretary Espy was forced to resign in October, 1994, and was indicted on charges of accepting bribes and other gratuities. Among the charges against him were making false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal dispersal of USDA subsidies. The largest corporate offender was Tyson Foods. Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. Espy got off because the law makes it easier to convict a briber than a bribee. Tyson paid the government $6 million to close its case.

Tyson had been enthusiastic supporters of the Clinton family for years. In 1994, Time reported that a senior pilot for Tyson, Joe Henrickson, had been grilled for three days by the Espy Independent Prosecutor Dan Smaltz and FBI agents. They grilled the Tyson pilot about earlier transfers of cash to the (Arkansas) Governor�s (Bill Clinton) mansion. According to Time, Henrickson claimed to have carried white envelopes containing a quarter-inch stack of $100 bills on six occasions.

Time magazine reported that, "In one case, [Henrickson claimed] a Tyson executive handed him an envelope of cash in the company�s aircraft hanger in Fayetteville and said, �This is for Governor Clinton.�"

Arkansas has its political traditions and the Stephens and Tyson families are evidently skilled practitioners of that art.

Monsanto�s real interest

in D&PL

By now the question becomes, "What is so attractive about the Stephens Group�s D&PL that Monsanto makes its second bid to add it to its global genetically-engineered seed empire?"

The answer is "the patent."

D&PL, together with the U.S. government, holds Patent No. 5,723,765, titled, "Control of Plant Gene Expression." The USDA, through its Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) in Lubbock, Texas, as noted, has worked with D&PL since 1983 to perfect Terminator GMO technology. Patent No. 5,723,765 is the patent for Terminator technology. When we speak about Terminator, whether we know it or not, we speak about D&PL and the USDA joint patent.

One year later, in early 1999, Monsanto, the largest producer of GMO seeds and related agri-chemicals, announced it was acquiring D&PL along with its Terminator patents.

In October 1999, following a worldwide storm of protest against Terminator seeds that threatened the very future of the Rockefeller Foundation�s "gene revolution," Dr. Gordon Conway, president of the prestigious Rockefeller Foundation, met privately with the board of directors of Monsanto. Conway convinced Monsanto that, for the long-term future of their GMO Project, they must go public to indicate to a worried world that it would not "commercialise" Terminator. Development of the genetic revolution and genetic engineering as a research area has been a top priority of the Rockefeller Foundation for decades and has been advancing with the help of researchers at the family�s Rockefeller University.

The Anglo-Swiss company Syngenta joined with Monsanto in declaring solemnly that it would also not commercialize its work on GURTS (Terminator) suicide seed technology.

That 1999 announcement took enormous pressure off of Monsanto and the agribusiness GMO giants, allowing them to advance the proliferation of their patented GMO seeds globally. Terminator could come later, once farmers and entire national agriculture areas like North America or Argentina or India had been taken over by GM crops. Then, of course, it would be too late. The Rockefeller-Monsanto 1999 press conference was clearly an application of classic Lenin Bolshevik tactics�Two Steps Forward, One Step Back�

Despite the Monsanto declaration of a moratorium on Terminator development, the U.S. government and the again independent D&PL refused to drop Terminator development.

In 2000, a year after the Monsanto Terminator moratorium announcement, the Clinton Administration�s USDA Secretary, Dan Glickman, refused repeated efforts by various agriculture and NGO organizations to drop the government�s support for Terminator or GURTs. His department�s feeble excuse for not dropping support for the work with D&PL was that it allowed the U.S. government to put "leverage" on D&PL to "protect the public interest."

Six years later it became clear: The only leverage the U.S. government had put on D&PL�s commercialization efforts on GURTs had been to lever it into commercial reality.

D&PL Vice-president Harry Collins declared at the time in a press interview in the Agra/Industrial Biotechnology Legal Letter, "We�ve continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System (TPS or Terminator). We never really slowed down. We�re on target, moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed off."

Nor did D&PL partner, the USDA, back down on Terminator after 1999. In 2001, the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) website announced, "USDA has no plans to introduce TPS into any germplasm�Our involvement has been to help develop the technology, not to assist companies to use it" (As if to say, "See, our hands are clean").

Then department spokesmen went on to say the USDA was, "committed to making the [Terminator] technology as widely available as possible, so that its benefits will accrue to all segments of society (sic)�ARS intends to do research on other applications of this unique gene control discovery�When new applications are at the appropriate stage of development, this technology will also be transferred to the private sector for commercial application." Terminator was alive and well inside the Washington bureaucracy.

In 2001, the USDA and D&PL executed a commercialization agreement for Terminator through its infamous Patent No. 5,723,765. The government and D&PL were not at all concerned about a worldwide outcry against Terminator.

That announcement came two years after Monsanto had dropped its planned takeover of D&PL and its Terminator patents.

The world was left with the (misleading) impression that Terminator was dead. In reality, it was anything but dead. Seven years later, long after public outcry against Terminator technology had died down, Monsanto re-entered and bought D&PL and its Terminator patents.

D&PL�s global net

The key scientific member of the D&PL board since 1993 has been Dr. Nam-Hai Chua. Chua, 62, is also head of the Rockefeller University Plant Molecular Biology Laboratory in New York�and has been for over 25 years. The labs are at the heart of the Rockefeller Foundation�s decades-long development and spending of more than $100 million of its own research grants to create their gene revolution. Until 1995, Chua was also a scientific consultant to Monsanto Corporation, as well as to DuPont�s Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Chua is at the heart of Rockefeller�s gene revolution and, clearly, D&PL and their research on Terminator have been at the center of that work.

D&PL is well-placed globally to proliferate its suicide seeds now, with the corporate and financial clout of the giant Monsanto company. D&PL already has subsidiaries including D&PL Argentina, D&PL China, D&PL China PTE in Singapore, Deltapine Paraguay, Delta Pine de Mexico, Deltapine Australia, Hebei Ji Dai Cottonseed Technology Company in China, CDM Mandiyu in Argentina, Delta and Pine Land Hellas in Greece, D&M Brazil Algodao of Brazil, D&PL India, D&PL Mauritius Ltd.

This vast global network combined with Monsanto�s dominant position in the GMO seeds and agri-chemicals market along with the unique DP&L Patent No. 5,723,765, Control of Plant Gene Expression, now give Monsanto and its close friends in Washington an enormous advance in their plans to dominate world food and plant seed use.

F. William Engdahl is author of the soon-to-be-released book, "Seeds of Destruction: The Dark Side of Genetically-engineered Food." He is also author of "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics" (see ad page 14). To see more of Engdahl�s excellent analyses or comment on his articles and books, he may be contacted through his website at www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.