May 5, 2003
May 12, 2003
May 19, 2003
May 26, 2003
In a continuing series, American Free Press is updating readers and supporters about the growing patriotic resistance to the misnamed, unconstitutional Patriot Act.
Arcata, Calif., (population 16,000) is the first to pass an ordinance that outlaws voluntary compliance with the federal Patriot Act. To date, 89 cities have passed resolutions condemning the Patriot Act and urging local officials to refuse to comply, but Arcata is the first to actually outlaw compliance. It won't be the last.
Similar action is pending in at least a dozen other cities and those that passed earlier denunciations are considering stronger measures to outlaw cooperation. A statewide resolution against the act is close to passage in Hawaii.
"I call this a nonviolent, pre-emptive attack," said David Meserve, the freshman city councilman who drafted the ordinance with the help of the Arcata city manager, city attorney and police chief.
"We want the local police to do what they were meant to do—protect their citizens," said Nancy Talanian, co-director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee in Florence, Mass., which advises citizens on how to draft resolutions.
Cities across the country passed anti-war resolutions with little observable effect on the administration but Talanian said resolutions condemning the Patriot Act are "not quite as symbolic" as the measures opposing the invasion of Iraq.
"Normally, the president and Congress don't pay much attention when it comes to waging war," she said. "But in the case of the Patriot Act, the federal government can't really tell municipalities that you have to do the work the INS or FBI want you to do. The city can say, ‘No, I'm sorry. We hire our police to protect our citizens and we don't want our citizens pulled aside and thrown in jail without probable cause."
While federal law pre-empts state laws in most cases, there are limits. Years ago, Congress required sheriffs to conduct extensive background checks on local citizens who wanted to buy handguns. The sheriffs, through their association, refused. They argued that under the Constitution's division of powers doctrine, Congress could not impose duties on local officials. The Supreme Court sustained them.
Evidence that Congress is beginning to take this grass-roots resistance seriously comes with the introduction of the Freedom to Read Protection Act (HR 1157) by Rep. Bernie Sanders (Vt.). His bill, which has 73 co-sponsors, would restore privacy protections for book borrowers and book buyers. Now, federal officials can demand to know what a citizen borrowed at a library or bought in a bookstore.
Earlier, Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member, sent Attorney General John Ashcroft a strong letter seeking information on implementation of the Patriot Act (American Free Press, April 21, 2003).
In Arcata, Meserve, a weather-worn builder and contractor in his 50s who wears flannel shirts, won his council seat on the platform: "The federal government has gone stark raving mad."
"The ordinance went through so easy we were surprised," he said. "We started going up to people asking what they thought. They thought, ‘great.' It's our citywide form of nonviolent disobedience."
The fine for breaking the new law is $57. It applies only to
the top nine managers of the city, telling them they have to refer
any Patriot Act request to the City Council.
|Top|
The apparent lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq presents a credibility problem for the coalition that provided falsified evidence to support their claim that Iraqi weapons posed a real threat to America.
the fact that the Iraq regime did not use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to prevent the complete conquest of their nation by foreign armies supports the assertion by those who said the Iraq did not have the banned weapons.
The lack of any evidence of such banned weapons in the country is now causing "a certain unease" among officials in Washington and London, who said war was necessary because of the "imminent and grave threat" Iraqi weapons supposedly posed to world security.
While the U.S. government and Britain claimed, before the war, that they had solid evidence of Iraqi WMD and that UN Security Council resolutions provided legal cover for their armed invasion of Iraq, the lack of any evidence of WMD in Iraq is raising serious questions about the motives for the aggression.
Tthere is growing concern that international law and the credibility of the United States and Britain will only be restored if banned WMD are found in Iraq.
The Bush administration had said that Iraq possessed chemical and biological agents and munitions capable of delivering them. The material was supposed to be enough to produce large amounts of anthrax and botulinum toxin. Iraq allegedly had underground or mobile laboratories to make germ weapons. To date nothing of the sort has been found.
The stated position of the U.S. administration, which calls for lifting UN sanctions on Iraq while preventing UN weapons inspectors from returning to the country, is being challenged by other members of the Security Council.
Lifting the sanctions would allow Iraqi oil to be sold on the world market and provide billions of dollars to pay for the reconstruction programs being contracted by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
USAID recently announced it had awarded an initial $34.6 million contract to Bechtel Group Inc., a privately owned San Francisco company, to reconstruct Iraq's power generation, water and sewage systems. Bechtel's contract could be worth $680 million if extended to repair hospitals, schools and other buildings.
Lt. Gen. John M. Pickler (ret), who works for Bechtel, is serving as the top aide to Jay Garner, another retired general who left Florida to direct the U.S.-led "reconstruction" of Iraq.
U.S. firms are receiving contracts that could be worth as much as $100 billion. In order to fund these projects it is necessary to lift the sanctions and have access to Iraq's oil revenues.
This xhy the U.S. administration wants the UN sanctions imposed in 1990 to be lifted and is one of the primary reasons for the war. The U.S. government wants to install a subservient government in Baghdad in order to control Iraq's immense oil wealth.
The independent British newspapers - those not owned by the pro-war media king Rupert Murdoch - have all called for UN weapons inspectors (UNMOVIC) headed by Hans Blix to be sent back to Iraq to verify any finds of weapons made by coalition forces.
Blix told the UN Security council on April 22 that only UN inspectors would be able to provide an objective assessment of any weapons or materials found in Iraq. Blix is scheduled to retire in June.
UN inspectors would save U.S. forces, which are already stretched thin, the effort and expense of searching for Iraqi WMD and would provide the required credibility that any materials found have not been planted by the allies to justify the war.
Financial Times reported: "A certain unease is developing in U.S. and UK government circles about their failure, so far, to uncover the WMD they so insistently charged the Saddam Hussein regime with possessing before the war. It is ironic that the U.S. government should be asking for more time to find Iraq's sinister arsenals, when it was earlier so impatient about the efforts of Hans Blix and his UN inspectors to do the same.
"The thought is forming in some people's minds - including those who supported the war - that these weapons may not exist at all," Stephen Glover wrote in The Daily Mail, a British newspaper. "Behind this idea is a still darker thought - that the weapons of mass destruction were invented by the allies to justify an attack on a sovereign state.
The question is now asked: did the Mossad - Israel's dirty tricks unit - supply false information to the CIA that Iraq had WMD to "Justify" the U.S. aggression?
"It's going to be very embarrassing when it turns out they have nothing to declare," former defense intelligence analyst Eugene Betit told Agence France Presse.
Former CIA station chief, Ray Close, said: "I'm hoping they will be embarrassed into acknowledging a role for some independent body. And who could it be but the UN?"
Retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern told Agence France Presse: "Some of my colleagues are virtually certain that there will be some weapons of mass destruction found, even though they might have to be planted."
McGovern said he was alluding to a remark by Secretary of State Colin Powell after it emerged that a letter purporting to show that Iraq had sought to procure uranium from Niger was a forgery.
About using forged evidence to justify war, Powell told NBC: "It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine."
Blix addressed the use of the forged evidence, a fake contract between Iraq and Niger, which alleged that Iraq imported some 500 tons of uranium from Niger, when he spoke to the Security Council on April 22.
"We have heard about the alleged contract between Iraq and Niger about the import of some 500 tons of uranium. When the IAEA got the contract they had no great difficulty in finding out that this was a fake, falsified simply," Blix said.
"I think that is very, very disturbing. Who falsified this? And is it not disturbing that the intelligence agencies - CIA, M16, etc. - that should have all the technical means at their disposal did not discover that this was falsified?"
The United states says it will not allow UN inspectors into Iraq, saying the U.S. has taken over the role of searching for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
The Russion and German government have stated that, in accordance with the Security Council resolutions, the lifting of sanctions can only occur after UN weapons inspectors certify Iraq is free of WMD.
"We are not al all opposing the lifting of sanctions,"
said Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov. "What we are insisting
on is that Security Council resolutions must be implemented. We
all want to know that there are no weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq and the only way to verify it is to have inspectors see
for themselves and to report back to the Security council. As
soon as they deliver the report, the sanctions could be lifted,
I'm sure.
|Top|
Who's more of a threat, Syria or North Korea? According to most objective military analysts the answer is obvious.
Syria, as far as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's regime is concerned, is Israel's archenemy. But Syria is not a danger to the United States. And, although North Korea is not getting the attention from Washington that Syria is receiving the strident Marxist state presents more of a danger to the West than Syria ever has.
Israel, backed by its powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, has the Bush administration aimed at Syria.
Syria, ruled by President Bashar alpAssad, has a total military numbering 316,000, as compared to Iraq's estimated 429,000. Iraq's defense budget was estimated at $1.4 billion annually, as compared to Syria's $1.8 billion.\
North Korea, of course, presents no problem or threat to Israel. North Korea has more that 1 million active military troops and the amount it is spending for defense is not known. This compares with 1,384,358 active duty U.S. troops, who are spread thinly throughout the world on various "peace-keeping" and support missions to protect the borders of other countries.
38,000 U.S. Troops
Most of North Korea's active military is stationed along the so-called DMZ, or demilitarized zone, which has separated the North from South Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953, South Korea maintains an active military of 683,000, about half the size of the North, and is supported by 38,565 U.S. troops permanently stationed below the DMZ.
North Korea has in its weapons arsenal as many as four nuclear warheads on bombs and guided missiles. It has withdrawn from treaties curtailing production of nuclear weapons. North Korea recently indicated it had started re-processing 8,000 spent nuclear power plant fuel rods to extract weapons-grade plutonium to produce additional nuclear warheads.
With the help of Red China, which has either stolen or been given during the Clinton years advanced missile technology from the United states, North Korea has developed nuclear-capable guided missiles. They can strike targets anywhere in North America. A North Korean missile was recently found in Alaska. North Korea can also lob short-range nuclear-tipped missiles into America's close Asian ally, Japan.
On the other hand, Syria neither possesses nuclear weapons
nor North Korea's missile capabilities, nor do most military experts
believe that Damascus has other weapons of mass destruction, including
stores of chemical and biological weapons.
|Top|
Congress skillfully gives Israel $10 billion a year to expand its brutal occupation of Palestinian lands in a manner that hides the amount from taxpayers.
"U.S. aid to Israel has some unique aspects, such as loans with repayment waived, or a pledge to provide Israel with economic assistance equal to the amount Israel owes the United States for previous loans," says a Library of Congress "briefing paper."
This paper, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, was prepared by the library's Congressional Research Service in April and is available to all congressmen. It confirms assessments made previously by American Free Press that blank-check aid to Israel costs taxpayers $10 billion a year.
"Israel also receives special benefits that may not be available to other countries, such as the use of U.S. military assistance for research and development in the United States, the use of U.S. military assistance for military purchases in Israel, or receiving all of its assistance in the first 30 days of the fiscal year rather than in three or four installments as other countries do," the report said.
Because, in the age of deficits, the United States has to borrow the money it gives Israel in one chunk at the start of the fiscal year, taxpayers are paying interest on all the money given Israel for the entire year.
These revelations come as Israel is demanding $12 billion—in addition to all other aid—because tourism is down dramatically and its economy is in shambles. The traditional celebrations of Christmas and Easter attracted fewer believers because they feared a premature trip to heaven in the war-ravaged land.
Israel is also asking for more money in Bush's "road map" to peace in the Middle East, which was unveiled after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat named Mahmoud Abbas to the new office of prime minister.
Israelis are unhappy with the road map because it requires withdrawal from part of the occupied territories. So they are asking for money to finance the withdrawal. The United States finances Israel's war machine so it can invade and occupy Palestinian lands. Now, the United States is being asked for money to pay for withdrawing from part of those lands.
The United States and Israel hope they have a patsy in Abbas, a close associate of Arafat who has little support from ordinary Palestinians. But Abbas said on April 28 he would not visit foreign capitals until Israel allows Arafat to travel freely again.
Though Arafat receives support from Europe, many Palestinians believe he is ineffective and corrupt.
President Bush said he would invite Abbas, who dresses in business suits and speaks English, to the White House for peace negotiations but not Arafat. Bush said he will regard Abbas, not Arafat, as the Palestinian leader.
Middle East experts said Abbas fears that accepting a White House invitation would make him appear a U.S. lackey in Palestinian eyes unless Israel stops trying to isolate Arafat.
"I will not travel anywhere before Israel lifts a siege on President Arafat so that we can get a guarantee he will be able to go abroad and come back freely without Israeli objection," Abbas told Reuters News Agency.
The government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Arafat is free to go abroad but it will not guarantee letting him return.
Arafat has denounced suicide attacks targeting Israeli civilians.
On assuming office on April 29, Abbas warned Israel that it
must abandon Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza to achieve
lasting peace. He again denounced terrorism and said peace is
the Palestinian goal. The "road map" envisions an independent
Palestinian state by 2005.
|Top|
Our greatest fear in waging an aggressive war on Iraq was that it would put us in the position of being a brutal imperial power perpetrating atrocities while doing nothing to further this country's interests. It now appears that our concerns are materializing.
With news that U.S. troops, on at least two occasions in chaotic situations, fired on demonstrators, who were protesting the U.S. presence in Iraq, and killed dozens of them, the situation is looking more and more like Palestine where an occupying army continues to savage a population with acts of violence.
As AFP has stated on many occasions: This was not a noble war. In fact, it was - and continues to be - detrimental to America's Interests.
How Washington elites could cooly tell Americans that we should expect our troops to be welcomed and celebrated after Iraqis have suffered 12 years of genocidal sanctions bringing starvation and hunger and then four weeks of bombing is evidence of their depravity.
And, while Americans have been told repeatedly that we will be better off if we oust or kill Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, we have seen no such thing. In fact, this country is increasingly becoming a police state as officials move ahead with programs to monitor, detain and deport political dissidents.
The rub is that our sacrifices are not being made in the interests of our great country. War and occupation have been prosecuted for the benefit of Big Oil, the military-industrial complex and Israel
At a time when Americans should be doing all we can to focus on troubles here at home and avoid involving ourselves in other nations' disputes, there is no end in sight to America's occupation of Iraq.
Heeding the advice of our Founding Fathers - who admonished
Americans to avoid entangling alliances - is something current
leaders would be wise to follow. It appears that the country is
heading down a dangerous path of interventionism. And that is
our greatest fear.
|Top|
The government used disinformation in a futile attempt to hide the fact that former Soviet had been hired to spy on Americans.
Former KGB counter-intelligence chief Gen. Oleg Kalugin, a Fox News commentator, reported recently that Adm. William Poindexter's Total Information Awareness office (TIA), which spies of U.S. citizens, hired both Gen. Yevgeny Primakov and Gen. Aleksandr V. Karpos, former KGB heads, as consultants and advisors.
In the late 1990s, Primakov served as Russian prime minister.
The KGB was the secret police in the former Soviet Union.
Al Martin of the on-line news magazine almartinraw.com, Previously reported that Primakov and Karpov were on the payroll of the Department of Homeland Security(DHS).
As reported in the May 5 issue of AFP, Primakov has worked with the center for Strategic and International Studies, a private company that consults with the U.S. government on issues related to terrorism and home land security. However, it is Poindexter's TIA which hired Primakov and Karpov, not DHS.
When the Bush administration realized it couldn't get away with lying about the hiring of Rimakov and Karpov by the TIA, it released disinformation, claiming the former soviet spies had a relationship with the department of Homeland Security.
Thus, when the media calls, the DHS says that the former KGB chiefs are not connected with the DHS. What Secretary Tom Ridge's office isn't telling the media is that the two ex-KGB operatives are working not DHS but for Poindexter's TIA. The administration, which waged war against Iraq, hired Primakov, a close friend of Saddam Hussein's and a terrorist himself, to assist the government in fighting terrorism.
The administration's action if reminiscent of the naming of
former Soviet agent Henry Kissinger to head the commission investigating
the 9-11 attacks.
|Top|
It took the harsh glare of publicity, but the Defense Department has belatedly decided to worry about an emergence of Gulf War Syndrome II.
Following complaints by congressmen and the glare of publicity the Defense Department has changed course and will screen veterans of Gulf War II for a collection of physical ailments associated with the first invasion of Iraq.
On May 12, AFP reported on the controversy surrounding the Pentagon's refusal to study blood from Gulf War vets despite funding for a program specifically allocated by Congress.
The Defense Department will begin taking blood samples from soldiers within 30 days of their return from deployment in Gulf War II, William Winkenwerder, assistant secretary for health, told The Washington Times.
Winkenwerder had been harshly and publicly criticized by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) for not responding to his January letter urging that the blood screening be conducted on soldiers prior to deployment. Reed said this was required under law and funds were available for the process.
Blood samples will be sent to the Defense Department's serum repository and will be available for studies to determine whether Gulf II veterans develop long-term health problems similar to those that occurred after the 1991 invasion of Iraq.
The decision to screen the blood of returning soldiers followed growing criticism from congressmen and veterans groups who accused the Pentagon of doing too little to safeguard their health.
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee dealing with veterans affairs, told Pentagon officials in March they were failing to comply with a law requiring the military to collect health data on troops both before and after deployment.
Gulf War Syndrome I was a collection of chronic health problems including muscle weakness, fatigue, skin rashes, memory loss and inability to concentrate that afflicted thousands of veterans.
Capt. Joyce Riley (retired), a nurse who served in Gulf War I, reports that more than 400,000 veterans of Gulf War I out of the 697,000 active duty service members and 180,000 National Guard who went to the Gulf have claimed chronic pain or illness. Some 30,000 veterans have required hospitalization. And 10,000 to 12,000 have already died.
Officials have been braced for Syndrome II.
The causes were unknown because "there was no data collected," said Steve Robinson, a Gulf I veteran and head of the National Gulf War Research Center. "If there was, we would have been able to rule in and rule out why soldiers were getting ill."
In his letter, also signed by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Reed asked the Pentagon in January to use $1.5 million from a $50 million Pentagon discretionary fund to draw blood from soldiers before deployment so it could be compared with their blood samples taken after the invasion to help determine the causes of any illnesses. Gov. Donald Carceiri of Rhode Island also sent a letter in April to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asking for the money.
While long overdue, the Pentagon action was viewed as a step in the right direction by critics.
"This is a positive step," Shays said in a statement. "The 30-day serum sample will provide solid clinical and epidemiological information about the health of deployed forces. DoD appears to be listening to Congress."
But Shays said there are still serious concerns about whether the Pentagon's tracking of veterans' health is adequate.
"Without reliable baseline data, a sick veteran of this
war may face the same doubts and resistance as his or her Desert
Storm compatriots that postwar illnesses were in fact caused by
wartime exposures," Shays said.
|Top|
The dissension that reared its head at Bilderberg's secret session near Washington last year will continue when the elite gathers this year in Versailles.
How will the global elites divide the spoils of a war with Iraq the Europeans objected to? That's the burning question as the secret Bilderberg group disappears behind the armed guards who will seal off the posh Trianon Palace Hotel in Versailles, France May 15-18.
It's not that Bilderberg has become a group of peace lovers - their financial families have made big bucks off countless wars over the past Half-century. They supported Gulf War I, which was designed to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait - not out of this world. But Bilderberg-connected companies in France and Germany had lucrative contracts in Iraq, which have lost most if not all value, since the new Iraq is no longer a major arms threat.
Another item high on the agenda is expanding the European Union to include Russia and all the former Soviet republics. The EU and Russia will have a summit barely two weeks after the Bilderberg session - on May 31 in St. Petersburg.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said May 4 he would promote the formation of a common market spanning the EU, Russia and the former Soviet republics at the summit.
"Along with harmonizing our legislation with Europe's, we intend to work with our colleagues toward creating a common economic space together with Greater Europe," Putin said at the end of a five-day visit to Ukraine's Crimean resort of Yalta.
It was at a Yalta meeting with Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin in 1945 that President Franklin Roosevelt allowed the Soviets to control what for a half century were known as the "Captive Nations" of East Europe.
After talks with Ukraine President Leonid Kuchma, Putin called
for a common market linking the EU with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan
and Belarus by September.
|Top|
More than 1,000 chemical and industrial plants in the United States are ticking toxic time bombs, according to a new federal study.
While the United States has been waging war in Iraq allegedly to prevent Saddam Hussein from using biological or chemical weapons on Americans - a charge that so far has proven to be baseless as no weapons of mass destruction have been found - chemical targets in the United States, if attacked, could cost millions of lives and remain almost totally unprotected.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified 15,000 chemical plants, refineries or other sites that store large quantities of Hazardous materials that present a clear danger to Americans.
Many of the sites are in relatively unpopulated areas, but the EPA has pinpointed some 125 where toxic gases, if released by an attack, could kill more than a million people in or near each facility.
There are another 700 sites that the EPA has identified where death and injury could exceed 100,000.
While the White House has been consumed with waging wars, the Department of Homeland Security has been ignoring the chemical disasters waiting to happen.
Draft legislation to address the issue is being circulated by the Senate environment and Public Works Committee. But most observers see it as a feeble response to meet a desperate need to shield the chemical facilities from potential terrorists.
The Bill, which was drafted by the Bush administration, would require that all plants conduct a "vulnerability assessment," and prepare plans for reducing the risk of terrorist attacks and reduce the danger if one should occur.
That is seen by most terrorism experts as a useful first step but one that should have been taken many years ago.
The bill is viewed as weak in several areas. It does not require the plants to submit their plans to protect themselves to the Department of Homeland security for review to determine if they are adequate.
The Bush administration, which is spending hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars to crush Iraq and then rebuild it, claims it does not have the resources to conduct such reviews.
Without reviewing the plants' - or even identifying lapses - what standards are there to meet? Where are the federal guidelines that must be enforced?
An alternative measure has been offered in the Senate by Sen.
John Corzine (D-N.J.), which calls upon industry to explore new
technologies, including less volatile chemicals, as one example,
and would require their use wherever practical.
|Top|
For the first time, an appellate panel - albeit in Britain - has formally recognized Gulf War Syndrome.
Alex Izett, a former lance corporal in the Royal Engineers, suffers osteoporosis as a result of injections given soldiers prior to Gulf War I, a British pension appeals panel has ruled.
It was the first time a judicial body had formally proclaimed that one of several ailments that afflicted thousands of veterans and came to be known as the Gulf War Syndrome actually exists. The establishment denied the syndrome for years.
"The concoction of injected drugs caused osteoporosis," the tribunal flatly stated. This prompted more calls for recognizing, treating and compensating for the syndrome, including from Paul Tyler, a Liberal member of Parliament. He called on the Ministry of Defense to admit "the truth between the injections and illnesses."
Izett said injecting the drugs before Gulf War I was "a mistake" but injecting the same drug before Gulf War II was "a crime." Izett never got to go the combat zone but was given the same injections as the soldiers who did.
Osteoporosis is a disease that, with the rarest of exceptions, afflicts only the aged. The vast majority of victims are women. Patients lose bone mass, become stoop-shouldered and prone to fractures. Izett, now 33, has had osteoporosis since the age of 25.
"I hope this judgment will have a knockdown effect and
that the Ministry of Defense will finally tell the truth,"
Izet told The Guardian, a British paper. "I'm not
only pleased for myself, I'm delighted for the Gulf War veterans
community as a whole."
|Top|
The annual meeting of the global elites kicked off mid May in secrecy. However, two resourceful AFP correspondents were there to greet them, unveiling to the world what goes on behind closed doors when the world's most powerful meet to discuss pressing issues of the day.
These are hotly debated topics as Bilderberg luminaries began filling the posh Trianon Palace Hotel on May 14.
Another issue high on the Bilderberg agenda is the proposed European Union army independent of NATO. Unlike the other two major issues, this is not a confrontation between Americans and Europeans. All Americans oppose the EU army, but so do many Europeans. Leading the anti-army European faction is "Lord" George Robertson, secretary-general of NATO.
French President Jaques Chirac, as head of the host state, delivered a welcoming speech during Bilderberg's first full working day on Thursday, May 15. Chirac tried to calm tensions by recalling that, despite dissension over the invasion of Iraq, Americans and Western Europeans are traditional allies. France was among the harshest critics of the war and the U.S. administration is bent on "punishing" the French.
Germany and Russia were harsh critics too, like most European states, but Secretary of State Colin Powell, even as Bilderberg was meeting, traveled to both those countries for make-up sessions.
Bilderberg's annual secret meeting was delayed for hours by people they scorn as the unwashed multitudes—workers in France. Their strike on May 13 allowed only one in five planes to land at deGaulle International Airport and at the older Orly Field in Paris.
Versailles is a short distance from Paris. The "one day strike" was so successful—with millions of supporters filling the streets of Paris and other cities—that it was extended through Thursday, May 15.
Bilderberg staff had started slipping inconspicuously into the Trianon on May 13, preparing for the planned shutdown about noon the following day. On Thursday morning, May 15, the last of the Bilderberg luminaries were arriving in long, black limos, behind police escorts and shrieking sirens.
Bilderberg had planned to shut down the Trianon Palace at noon on May 13, as usual, so their functionaries could arrive absent the masses. Instead, the Trianon was open to the public until late Wednesday evening and the shutdown occurred early Thursday morning. Then Bilderberg commenced its work.
Until last year, when meeting in the Washington suburb of Chantilly, Va.—near Dulles International Airport for security reasons in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks—Bilderberg had a tradition of congeniality.
Three sources within the Trianon Palace are providing detailed information about what is transpiring behind the guarded, sealed-off resort.
Bilderberg remains united on the common goal of establishing a world government under the United Nations while retaining control over the wealth of the Earth and all inhabitants. But on the issue of U.S. policy in the Middle East war anger runs high.
Europe opposed U.S. war plans a year ago, extracting a promise from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld not to invade Iraq in 2002. But the Europeans like the war no more this year than last. There was taunting, such as "where are all these awful weapons of mass destruction?"
Europeans are also skeptical of U.S. plans to "control" Iraq's oil for the "benefit" of the Iraqi people. "Who are the ‘other' beneficiaries?" one asked sarcastically. So Iraqi oil money will be used to rebuild what Americans destroyed? "How many fat contracts will go to Europeans?" came the question.
But emotions are running even higher on the issue of U.S. Middle East policy. At the moment Bilderberg was gathering in Versailles, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was contemptuously rejecting the "road map" to peace introduced by Bush and endorsed by the other members the "quartet"—the UN, EU and Russia.
Powell had just visited Sharon to beg him to accept the peace plan. But Sharon dismissed as "not on the horizon" any discussion of dismantling Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.
In The Jerusalem Post, Sharon ridiculed any idea that U.S. aid may be reduced. He said no U.S. administration had ever supported settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied after launching the Six-Day War in 1967.
Referring to Sharon's arrogance toward the country that has given Israel countless billions of dollars over the past half century while asking nothing in return, a European Bilderberg luminary told a grim-faced American: "you are too stupid to know when you've been insulted by a moral midget."
Adding to the embarrassment of Americans at Bilderberg is the fact that the peace plan thrown back into Powell's face asks only modest moves by Israel. It only asks that Israel abandon settlements built on Palestinian lands since March 2001. Israel, in this initial "peace move," is not required to give up the land it seized in doubling its size in the1967 war.
The idea of an independent UN army arose from Europe's resentment over U.S. domination of NATO. Some suggest it be a separate force but party of, and controlled by, NATO. But opponents in Europe as well as the United States argue that a separate EU force would make NATO's role as the UN's world army incoherent.
NATO has said repeatedly that it is no longer confined to defending Europe but will deploy troops anywhere in the world at the direction of the UN Security Council.
UN "peacekeepers" are on patrol at 16 far-flung missions
throughout the world.
|Top|
Is there a new American "imperialism" abroad in the world, intent upon realizing the long-held scheme of globalists and internationalist for a world government? Will U.S. forces continue to occupy the oil-soaked Middle East nation of Iraq well into at least the current decade? Or is Washington really planning to give a "liberated" Iraq back to the Iraq people?
Not since the dawn of time has a single country had troops stationed over a wider area of the world than the United States has today. In fact, America has a major military presence in more than 35 countries on every continent of the world.
In three weeks, the American military overcame Iraqi forces and is now an occupying force running the country out of Baghdad.
No one in the U.S. government seems able or, perhaps more appropriately, willing to say for how long.
All that is known is the obvious: (1)Occupation forces are now being resented by more and more Iraqi citizens who are growing increasingly restless; (2)Untold billions of American tax dollars will be needed for the continuing occupation and to rebuild what "coalition" - American and British - forces wrecked in defeating Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime; (3)The American government is now in control of everything Iraqi, including the Oil; (4)Help, other than British, in rebuilding Iraq is not wanted by the U.S. Government. In most instances even the UN is being discouraged from assisting in the costly effort to rebuild the country.
Critics of the Bush administration's war with Iraq are asking if America ever intends to release the hold it now has upon the oil riches of Iraq, perhaps, as some geologist contend, the repository of the world's largest supplies of oil, even surpassing those of Saudi Arabia.
This much is certain: America has made its footprint felt in
the Middle East. It is currently the dominant force there, and
perhaps already looking for other "targets of opportunity"
for further operations, including Syria and Iran. If the United
States can control the oil resources of the Middle East its status
an the world's only superpower will continue unchecked.
|Top|
The masters of the media monopoly are gearing up to expand their holdings now that the Federal Commission is set to abolish restrictions that are supposed to limit one corporation from dominating newspapers, television and radio outlets in media markets across America.
AFP as the first national media outlet to publicize the fact that the Federal Communications Commission planned to abolish current rules that limit the number of newspapers and televisions that can be owned by any one media corporation in any single market.
Although reports about the topic did appear in some major newspapers, they were generally buried in the business news sections and consequently received very little attention until AFP's coverage of the scheme, the news of which was subsequently echoed in other independent publications and on the Internet, the FCC was flooded with letters and emails objecting to the proposal - which even the FCC itself admits.
However, on May 12 the staff of the FCC submitted a 261-page report to the five FCC board members, recommending - as expected - that the FCC abolish the existing rules.
All indications are that the three Republican majority members of the FCC, led by FCC Chairman Michael Powell, intend to vote in favor fo the recommendations, despite widespread grass-roots opposition. The two Democratic minority members, Michael J. Dopps and Jonathan Adelstein, who question the proposal, will be out-voted.
The ban on "cross-ownership," as it is known, will supposedly be lifted only on media conglomerates in large and mid-size cities, but will be retained in small cities.
Since 1975 when the original rules were first set in place, a variety of loopholes, granted as waives by the FCC, permitted major media conglomerates to own both a newspaper and a broadcast outlet in at least 50 instances. This included such major cities as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Cincinnati and Milwaukee where the corporations that publish the major daily newspapers in those cities also own radio and/or television broadcast stations. Essentially, the rules have been made to be broken in any case.
In addition, the FCC staff has recommended that major broadcast networks be allowed to increase the Number of television stations that they own. At this point, a single network cannot own television stations that combine to reach more that 35 percent of the national audience. The FCC staff wants to increase the audience percentage reached to 45 percent. This will permit major networks to own many of the affiliate stations that are now locally owned and therefore somewhat independent.
The FCC also wants to make it possible for one corporation to increase the number of television stations it can own in a large market from two to three. Again, however, the FCC staff claims that it will retain the limit to two in medium-size markets and one in small communities.
It seem unlikely that congress will take any action to restrict the FCC's intended measures. At a recent congressional hearing featuring media baron Rupert Murdoch - who is in the process of expanding his own Fox media monopoly - Republican congressmen, most notably Rep James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), shamelessly tripped over one another rushing to praise Murdoch and his massive media holdings.
During the Murdoch love-fest, liberal Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) Was one of the few members of Congress present to raise questions about Murdoch's media power and the consequent political clout that Murdoch has achieved - having used his holdings, for example, to promote the American war against Iraq.
The business pages of the American press are now abuzz with reports about an impending "media buying frenzy" that will be unleashed as a result of the FCC's intended actions. In other words, the media monopoly will expand - and thereby further limit free exchange of ideas and opinions.
Ironically, these FCC plans are being proposed in the name of "the free market." Yet, this would be a major boon to the increasingly smaller number of global corporate media giants that are swallowing up once independent local newspapers and broadcast outlets across America and around the world, for that matter.
Such a move would also give expanded political clout to the already immensely powerful lords of the media allowing them to effectively have a monopoly on local news coverage, more so than may already even exist.
Advocates of "deregulation" say that because so many Americans now have access to the Internet and can thereby call up many news sources worldwide that is no longer any need for so-called "out of date" regulations.
In addition, advocates say that because of the expansion of satellite and cable television, previous concerns about the concentration of media ownership are no longer valid.
It is true that the Internet has provided a communications-outreach explosion of unprecedented proportions - just in the last several years alone. However, most "average" Americans get the bulk of their news and information from their local "mainstream" newspaper and television and radio which are themselves increasingly being grabbed up by major media monopolies.
In the small city of Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, the New Your-based Newhouse family controls the major daily newspaper, The Patriot. The Newhouse family's Advance Communications also controls a number of smaller weekly newspapers in both suburban and rural "bedroom" counties surrounding the city of Harrisburg. Most of those people have no idea that their "local" newspaper is owned by a national media conglomerate held tightly in the hands of a super-powerful billionaire family.
Those Americans who do tend to use the Internet for "other" information tend to frequent the web sites of "major" widely-publicized and "fashionable" newspapers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times.
However, what many of those who fancy themselves to be "in the know" because they access multiple "big name" newspapers do not realize is that the owners of The Chicago Tribune, for example, are also the Owners of The Los Angeles Times and New York's Long Island-based Newsday and The Hartford (Connecticut) Courant, to mention several in the Tribune Co.'s stable.
Many "well rounded" readers who think they are getting
"alternative" information from other news sources are
fooling themselves by their own ignorance of the growing media
monopoly that prefers to keep its concentration of elite ownership
out of the realm of public understanding and discussion.
|Top|