posted 04-11-2003 05:34 PM            

You disagree with it..fine.

Bu$h is a criminal. So is most of the government.

That covers it in a nutshell.

posted 04-11-2003 05:54 PM            

At least I can talk with the Professor:

quote:

---

No I don't believe the war is about oil, my take on them articles was if Israel were to build a pipeline through Syria the arabs around the region would be up in arms not to mention in order to do such a project you would have to defeat Syria, I don't think they get along with Israel that good.

---

This sounds reasonable to me, Prof. Interesting to note that Iraq already does have a direct oil pipeline to Syria. I haven't heard whether the troops have shut it down at this point though...but I'm sure they soon will.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/201409.shtml

quote:

---

The offending northern pipeline that carries crude from Iraq's northern fields to Syria's Souedieh area was (and perhaps still is) pumping away at the rate of 20,000 barrels a day. Supplementing the pipeline, a railway between Syria and Iraq transported relatively small amounts of oil. Furthermore, according to Western intelligence sources, that same railway transported bartered-in-exchange-for-oil military equipment back to Iraq.

---

posted 05-12-2003 07:10 PM            

Globalist assault against America now underway

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 12, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

"ECOSOC's CSD seeks to control WEHAB."

If you know what this headline means, you are likely to be part of the problem. This headline is written in "acronymese" with a U.N. dialect – the lingo of leftists who live on, and for, the United Nations. Translation: the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council's Commission on Sustainable Development seeks to control Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity.

While the media spotlight is focused on the Security Council's debate about rebuilding Iraq, the rest of the U.N. bureaucracy lumbers along toward its published goal of ruling the world. The Commission on Sustainable Development concluded two weeks of meetings in New York, on May 9. It was the 11th annual session of this U.N. body, created as a result of the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. The purpose of the Commission is to implement "Agenda 21."

For 11 years, this collection of delegates has been meeting in exotic places around the world, at taxpayers' expense, egged-on by thousands of representatives of NGOs (non-government organizations) – again, largely at taxpayers' expense – expressly for the purpose of figuring out how to control the lives of everyone on earth. They know how they want to do it, and they are making great strides toward achieving their goal.

Think about it: If this commission can control water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity, they control the people who rely on these resources. Can they actually control these resources? They're trying. Here are some of their efforts to control water.

Energy is still up for grabs because the U.N. Climate Change Treaty calls only for voluntary action, while the legally binding Kyoto Protocol has been rejected by the Bush administration. The World Health Organization is in place with 3,500 employees stationed around the world. The U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization has 3,700 employes stationed around the world. And the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity is up and running, with more than 400 Biosphere Reserves around the world.

These are only a few of the key organizations and agencies of the U.N., which coordinate their work to achieve the objectives set forth in "Agenda 21," which is the "Action Plan" to achieve global governance, as described by the Commission on Global Governance's report, "Our Global Neighborhood."

On the final day of the CSD meeting in New York, Eric Frumin, representing the textile unions in the United States, but speaking for Global Unions, praised the delegates for amending the "Action Plan" to more fully integrate the body of issues relating to "basic security," which is also a goal of the U.N.'s International Labor Organization.

For those unfamiliar with U.N. doublespeak, "basic security," describes the evolving definition of the word "security" as it appears in the U.N. Charter. Originally, "security" meant defensive security for member nations. The new definition means "... safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression, as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life." Frumin said that the changes in the "Action Plan" would provide a "Workplace Assessment" program to assure that this new brand of "security" would be integrated into the Commissions' WEHAB priorities.

Sustainable development, as defined in "Agenda 21," is defacto socialism. Sustainable development requires government to regulate virtually all human activity in order to achieve what government determines to be "equitable" and "sustainable" use of the planet's resources.

Freedom cannot survive sustainable development. Free markets cannot exist under a "sustainable" regime. Sustainable development, defined and implemented under a system of global governance, results in the U.N. deciding to what extent individual nations may exert what remains of their national sovereignty.

Skirmishes with the U.N., such as the recent impasse in the Security Council, withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, and the removal of the United States' signature from the International Criminal Court, are small steps in the right direction. It is foolish, then, to turn around and rejoin UNESCO, turn again to the Security Council for U.N. involvement in Iraq, and to continue to send delegates and money to the CSD, ECOSOC, UNEP, UNDP and the hundreds of other U.N. agencies and organizations that continue to plot the downfall of American values.

Congress will not seriously consider Ron Paul's HR 1146, a bill to withdraw from the U.N., until the American people realize that every day we continue to prop up the U.N. brings us closer to global governance, and demand that their elected officials get behind the bill and get us out of the United Nations.

posted 05-14-2003 05:31 AM            

Why the U.N. can never bring peace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 14, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

If you ask people what the U.N. stands for, most would probably answer "peace," or at least the world's best hope of peace.

For millions around the world, a U.N.-fostered peace is more than a hope; it is an inevitable necessity. They put their full passion into ending war – or as a recent Walter Cronkite PBS series framed it – into "Avoiding Armageddon." The horror of war is what galvanizes them.

Across America, Cronkite's anti-war message is so commonly accepted that public schools will no doubt show "Avoiding Armageddon" to their students, promoting the peace movement by teaching the reality of war, made frighteningly vivid by the series.

Now how could anyone reasonably question Walter Cronkite's hope of global peace? After all, even Winston Churchill said it's better to jaw, jaw, jaw than war, war, war. So let's get the world around a table, these people say, and talk, talk, talk about problems until "peace" is the only solution.

Sounds good, but the United Nations is not about "talk" as its world court indicates. Force is waiting in the wings – and what's worse, this force will be used to establish a peace that no one is willing to define up front. After all, what does a U.N. "peace" really mean?

The "Dictionary of Scientific Communism," popular among leftists in the old Cold War days, defines "peace" as a world that is totally communist. Considering atheist communism is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century, I think we can pass on that definition. But obviously there does need to be some agreement.

In debate, it's essential to define one's terms, yet typical globalists are strangely resistant to defining "peace." Why? Because it raises other questions they can't answer. There's more to the word peace than meets the eye, and this is the danger.

"Peace isn't simply an absence of war;" said Ronald Reagan, "it's the presence of justice." Clearly that makes sense. So now if we want peace, we – and the U.N. – must also achieve "justice." But with all the different religions, including the most virulent one – atheist secularism – it is unlikely the U.N. could achieve even a definition of justice, much less the reality of it.

Are women to get the same rights in Saudi Arabia that they get in America? Are 'gays' to have the same rights in Belfast as in San Francisco? Are parents to have the same rights in China that they enjoy in America? How about the rights of a child? On and on it goes.

In the end, even the globalists would have to admit (if forced to) that to define human rights, the U.N. must define what is "human" and what are "rights." Were hundreds of thousands of Rwandans not human enough for the U.N. to prevent their murders? Do the monks in Tibet have no rights? How about the unborn? Who defines their rights?

Considering all these unanswered questions, how can we explain the world's passionate pursuit of this vague global order? In a sense, it is irrational. Honoring a U.N. flag that has no meaning should be just as creepy for globalists as it is for patriots. Unfortunately, it's not.

Globalists don't seem to fear the U.N.'s meaninglessness. And with all their talk of peace, they also don't seem to fear the violence inevitably required to control the whole world.

There is an explanation for this lack of concern – and no, it doesn't involve conspiracy theories. We only need to understand the evolutionary faith of the secular worldview, and that faith's predictable yearning. Since there is no God (none they recognize), secular governments become the final moral authority in each society, the giver of all rights. To put it the communist way, "God is the state and the state is God." However, this belief system leaves secularists to deal with hundreds of little god-governments (and some are not so little), all with different "opinions" about right and wrong.

That's an untenable situation, say the globalists, which can only lead to chaos and endless war. Of course, they've got a point, so the logical move for them is to serve "one god." (Remember, it's a faith.) One secular god-government adds up to one world government. Just as monotheism was the ultimate revelation in an ancient world of many arguing gods, for secularists globalism is the only sane path, the only real path to peace: One truth, one law, one god – the United Nations.

Fine. Except their god can't tell us for sure what truth is, or peace or justice – because their truth is always "evolving." Does this secular god represent love, and if so by what standard does it love? And what does it hate? If truth keeps changing, then so do love and hate. Do we hate tyranny one day, and love it the next? Is morality one thing on Monday and another on Tuesday? This is not a god we can depend on. And ultimately, that's why globalists don't want to be asked hard questions – like what does the U.N. stand for?

No wonder an America "under God" is so annoying to the United Nations-god. No wonder we are hated. We are a double threat: We are essentially Judeo-Christian in our moral view, and we are strong – very strong. Although we have long stood for peaceful cooperation among nations, we still hold fast to our sword – and our sovereignty.

No, we do not relish the horrors of war. But yes, we understand war's necessity in light of the world's confused ideas about peace and justice – not to mention its corrupt tendencies. America's faith and strength are intensely threatening to globalists who will continually pressure us to accept the dictates of the International Criminal Court or other devices of the global order, from the Kyoto accords to total disarmament.

How long we can maintain the courage of our national convictions is debatable since appeasers abound in this country, heavily supported by those with a secular view. The Bible says there will one day be global government, perhaps simply because the cry for peace in an age of "television war" will have a natural, irresistible momentum.

Even our schools teach the globalist message that there is "nothing more horrible than war." This is a lie, as people who live under dictators well know. Consider the killing fields of Cambodia, or Mao's murderous reign. Consider the Soviet starvation of Ukraine. Consider the death camps of the Nazis, or China's destruction of Tibet, or just read the newspapers about Saddam's Iraq where parents were controlled through the torture of their children. Do this, and you will know we are teaching a deadly lie.

posted 05-14-2003 05:35 AM            

WND scrutinizes Council
on Foreign Relations
Special investigation exposes globalist assault on U.S. sovereignty

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 13, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

In the May edition of its acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine – titled "THE NEW WORLD RE-ORDER – WorldNetDaily dives into the murky waters of global government, taking direct aim at its many-tentacled hub called the United Nations, and explores, among other things, the pivotal role of the controversial Council on Foreign Relations.

A topic avoided by many for fear of being labeled conspiracy theorists, the Council on Foreign Relations nevertheless has played a central role in creating the United Nations and pushing for world government.

The United Nations is big news right now, after the highly publicized Security Council drama that preceded the recent Iraq war and President George W. Bush's March 17 decision to slam shut the window of U.N. diplomacy and go forth with a "coalition of the willing" to liberate Iraq. In fact, according to May's Whistleblower, decisions made in the next few months – by the United Nations and especially by the U.S. Congress – will determine to a great extent whether America remains a free, constitutional republic or yields its freedom to the rule of international law administered by the United Nations.

So what's all this about the Council on Foreign Relations?

Formed in 1921, the CFR's purpose from the start was to create a stream of scholarly literature to promote the benefits of world government, and attract a membership of rich intellectuals who could influence the direction of foreign policy in America. After President Franklin Roosevelt filled his administration with members of the CFR in the 1930s, the Bretton Woods Agreements in 1944 produced the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations Charter was drafted. The U.S. delegation to the U.N.'s founding conference included 47 members of the CFR. The secretary-general of the conference, CFR member Alger Hiss, was later convicted of perjury for lying about having provided government documents to a communist espionage ring. The U.S. Senate ratified the charter by a vote of 89 to 2 on July 28, 1945.

Today, supported by the world's wealthiest foundations and individuals, the CFR has been extremely successful in its mission. Its flagship publication, Foreign Affairs, is the port-of-entry for many ideas that become public policy.

"For decades," said David Kupelian, vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily and Whistleblower, "those claiming the influential Council on Foreign Relations was intent on undermining American sovereignty have been relegated to the margins of public policy debate and scorned as 'ultraconservatives.' And yet, it's unquestionably one of the world's most influential policy organizations. Somewhere between the two extremes of conspiratorial obsession with secret societies and the mainstream media's denial is the truth – and that is what we're targeting in Whistleblower."

The great hope of the United Nations' architects was that world peace could be assured by consolidating military power in this new institution and disarming all national governments, except for the police necessary to provide domestic security. The United States fully supported this policy, in principle.

Though the Korean War and the subsequent Cold War between East and West derailed these plans for a time, President John Kennedy renewed the hope for empowering the U.N. in 1961. His administration produced the DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277, Disarmament Series 5, released September 1961. The document called for disarmament to "a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force." A new and improved version was published in 1962, titled: "Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."

"It is neither fair nor accurate to say these documents were the product of the CFR," says the May Whistleblower. "But it is accurate, and instructive, to realize these documents were developed by men who were members of the CFR. John McCloy and Robert Lovett were described as 'distinguished individuals' in an article by John F. Kennedy which appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1957."

In fact, Lovett was offered his choice of cabinet positions in the Kennedy administration but declined, choosing instead to make recommendations, all of which were accepted by Kennedy.

That members of the CFR have exercised extraordinary influence on foreign policy to this day cannot be denied. Whether that influence is the result of organizational strategies, or the result of individuals who simply happen to be members of the same organization, is an endlessly debated question. Richard Harwood of the Washington Post (Oct. 30, 1993, p. A21) observed during the Clinton administration that members of the Council on Foreign Relations

"… are the closest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States. The president is a member. So is his secretary of state, the deputy secretary of state, all five of the undersecretaries, several of the assistant secretaries and the department's legal adviser. The president's national security adviser and his deputy are members. The director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The secretary of defense, three undersecretaries and at least four assistant secretaries are members. The secretaries of the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Health and Human Services and the chief White House public relations man … along with the speaker of the House [are members] … This is not a retinue of people who 'look like America,' as the president once put it, but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex."
May's Whistleblower, perhaps as never before, shines the powerful light of investigative journalism on the United Nations and its globalist agenda. From radical environmental treaties that would eviscerate traditional property rights, to attempts at global gun control, to resolutions aimed at establishing international "gay rights," the United Nations is the hub of an effort to restructure the world in the most radical ways imaginable.

posted 05-14-2003 05:43 AM            

Same Ends, Different Means
by William Norman Grigg

While disagreeing about the necessity of war with Iraq, both the "conservative" Bush administration and the Marxist-led "peace" movement seek to empower the UN.

Names and email addresses are not harvested from this feature. We respect your privacy and as such you will not be added to an email list.


Although they may disagree about the means, the Bush administration and the international "peace" movement are in accord regarding the objective in Iraq: Both sides eagerly seek to enhance the power and prestige of the UN by enforcing Security Council disarmament resolutions.

Many commentators have correctly pointed out that the roster of anti-war activists is cluttered with the names of veteran leftists, including geriatric figures from the Vietnam era. This is particularly true of Win Without War (WWW), a project of MoveOn.org, a partisan Democratic pressure group. WWW’s campaign debuted with a lengthy protest petition bearing the names of scores of celebrities and activists, including notorious Hollywood leftists like Ed Asner, Mike Farrell, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Dennis Weaver; Peter Yarrow of "Peter, Paul and Mary" infamy; feminist agitator Gloria Steinem; and Marxist historian Howard Zinn.

Introduced at a December 10th Hollywood press conference, Win Without War claims to represent "millions of Americans and seeks to prevent bloodshed and the loss of life on all sides by slowing the Bush administration’s apparent rush to war," according to a press release. WWW is hard-wired into the radical network and boasts the support of such prominent leftist lobbies as the National Organization for Women, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and the National Council of Churches.

Given WWW’s background and affiliations, many people would assume that its objectives are diametrically opposed to those of the supposedly conservative Bush administration. The statement contained in the group’s petition, however, is one of solidarity with the administration’s stated objectives: "We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure [sic] Iraq’s effective disarmament.... The valid U.S. and UN objective of disarming Saddam Hussein can be achieved through legal diplomatic means. There is no need for war."

No Disagreement

Where Win Without War and similar leftist groups demand that the Bush administration support the UN, they are pushing against an open door. The Bush administration’s policy, as demonstrated by the repeated and explicit statements of the president himself, is to disarm Iraq under UN auspices to enhance the UN’s power and credibility.

Consider the following illustrations:

• In an address to the UN General Assembly on September 12th of last year, President Bush proclaimed: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" On this and other occasions, Mr. Bush has made clear that he wants the UN to be relevant. "We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful," he told the General Assembly. "We want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced."

• Answering questions at Camp David two days later, Mr. Bush revisited the UN-must-not-become-irrelevant theme: "The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body, as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that’s what we’re about to find out.... So this is a chance for the United Nations to show some backbone and resolve, as we confront the true challenges of the 21st century." And he revisited that theme once again in his national radio address of September 14th: "Saddam Hussein’s defiance has confronted the United Nations with a difficult and defining moment: Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purposes of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

• On October 31st, Mr. Bush told a South Dakota audience: "I went to the United Nations a while ago because I want the United Nations to be effective.... It makes sense for there to be an international body that has got the backbone and the capacity to help keep the peace. And so here is my message, a message, by the way, resoundingly supported by members of both political parties in the Senate and the House: The message to the world is that we want the U.N. to succeed. We want those resolutions you pass to be listened to. You have told Saddam Hussein he must disarm; do your job."

• On November 8th, the day UN Security Council Resolution 1441 to disarm Iraq was passed, Mr. Bush stated: "America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?... If Iraq fails to comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."

• "The Iraqi regime has a duty under Security Council resolutions to declare and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction," declared President Bush at a January 3rd rally for the troops at Ft. Hood. "That’s what the world has said. That’s what the United States expects from Saddam Hussein.... We can now be certain that [Saddam] holds the United Nations and the U.N. Security Council and its resolutions in contempt. He really doesn’t care about the opinion of mankind. Saddam Hussein was given a path to peace; thus far, he has chosen the path of defiance."

• The bulk of Secretary of State Powell’s presentation to the Security Council on February 5th described (in Powell’s words) "the situation with respect to Iraq and its disarmament obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441." According to Powell, that resolution "gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present and voting on that day had any illusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply." In short, Resolution 1441 was effectively a UN declaration of war against Iraq.

• The day after Powell’s February 5th presentation, President Bush stated: "The Iraqi regime’s violations of Security Council resolutions are evident, and they continue to this hour.... On November 8th, by demanding the immediate disarmament of Iraq, the United Nations Security Council spoke with clarity and authority." Confronted with Iraq’s "direct defiance of Security Council [Resolution] 1441," explained Bush, "the Security Council must not back down, when [its] demands are defied and mocked by a dictator." Setting the stage for war, the president declared: "All the world can rise to this moment.... The United Nations can renew its purpose and be a source of stability and security in the world. The Security Council can affirm that it is able and prepared to meet future challenges and other dangers."

• Mr. Bush reiterated that formula in a February 7th press briefing. "This is a defining moment for the U.N. Security Council," insisted the president. "If the Security Council were to allow a dictator to lie and deceive, the Security Council would be weakened.... [T]he U.N. Security Council has got to make up its mind soon as to whether or not its word means anything."

• A White House national security fact sheet laying out the case against Saddam’s regime describes its drive to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, as well as its ongoing efforts to thwart UN arms inspections. Although the White House document notes that Saddam "aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaeda members," it said nothing about Iraqi involvement in terrorism against our nation. However, it did mention Saddam’s "utter contempt for the U.N.," his regime’s non-cooperation with arms inspectors and its blocking of UN-requested surveillance flights (which Iraq permitted to resume following Powell’s February 5th speech), and threats against scientists who cooperate with the UN. In brief, the Bush administration is treating Iraq’s refusal to submit to UN dictates as threatening our national security.

• "[I]f force becomes necessary to disarm Iraq and enforce the will of the United Nations, if force becomes necessary to secure our country and to keep the peace, America will act deliberately, America will act decisively, and America will act victoriously with the world’s greatest military," the president proclaimed at a February 13th rally for sailors at Jacksonville, Florida’s Mayport Naval Station. "The decision is this for the United Nations: When you say something does it mean anything?" continued the president. "You’ve got to decide, if you lay down a resolution, does it mean anything? The United Nations Security Council can now decide whether or not it has the resolve to enforce its resolutions. I’m optimistic that the U.N. Security Council will rise to its responsibilities, and this time ensure enforcement of what it told Saddam Hussein he must do. See, I believe when it’s all said and done, free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society."

• In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on February 26th, Bush stated: "In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council. We believe in the Security Council — so much that we want its words to have meaning." He also explained that "the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to ‘make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force.’"

Worst of Both Worlds

The president and his subordinates have made their intent transparently clear: The impending war on, or occupation of, Iraq is intended to carry out the UN Security Council’s mandates, not to protect our nation or to punish those responsible for the September 11th attack. The war would uphold the UN’s supposed authority and vindicate its role as a de facto world government.

Syndicated columnist Mark Steyn, a Bush administration supporter and critic of the UN, points out that in the first Gulf War, President Bush (the elder) established the principle that "it’s now ‘illegitimate’ to go to war unless under the auspices of the UN.... [A]nother UN-sanctioned war would enshrine the principle that only the UN can sanction war."

Approaching the issue from the other political direction, Robert Wright, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed out in the February 4th New York Times that the current President Bush has given the UN "a prominence it has rarely enjoyed in its 57-year history. In fact, there remains a slim chance that the president could, however paradoxically, emerge as a historic figure in the United Nations’ own evolution toward enduring significance.... [I]f Nixon could go to China, President Bush can go through New York." By pressuring the UN to enforce its resolutions, Mr. Bush is making it easier for the UN to do just that. At the same time, he is making it more difficult for fellow Republicans to oppose UN empowerment — just as, decades earlier, Mr. Nixon made it more difficult for fellow Republicans to oppose opening U.S. relations with Communist China.

Wright believes that additional Security Council resolutions could lead either to the peaceful unseating of Saddam’s regime, or to a UN-sanctioned war. "But at least it would be war of the kind multilateralists wisely prefer: under explicit United Nations authority, with multinational participation," he writes.

It’s worth mentioning that the same Robert Wright commending President Bush’s efforts to empower the UN authored a January 17, 2000 New Republic cover story bearing this provocative title: "America is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government. Hooray." The "teaser" headline on that article proclaims: "World government is coming. Deal with it." Clearly, Wright — an unabashed globalist who craves an end to our national independence — recognizes that President Bush is doing his best to bring about those objectives.

Wright also admits that one inevitable consequence of this crusade will be an escalating terrorist war against American citizens. A UN-sanctioned war on Iraq "wouldn’t eliminate terrorist blow-back," Wright continued in his Times op-ed. "An American-led war followed by military occupation would be a publicity bonanza for al-Qaeda, with grave long-term consequences." According to Wright, the escalation in terrorism that will inevitably follow another UN military strike on Iraq is simply part of the price that must be paid for enhancing the UN’s power and prestige.

Indeed, an escalation in terrorism would accelerate the drive to empower the UN. But if the UN has the power to disarm one nation, it can disarm others — including the United States. Nations would not be disarmed in a vacuum; the UN would be given the military capabilities to police the world — supposedly to save us from the terrorist threat.

Classic Campaign

What we are seeing is a classic application of a familiar revolutionary tactic — the pincer attack. The Bush administration’s drive for war represents "pressure from above" on behalf of the UN, with the administration’s supposed antagonists in the peace movement offering complementary "pressure from below." And according to public opinion surveys, this strategy to empower the UN is paying off. Polls conducted by the Gallup Organization and the Pew Research Center in late February "found that while majorities say they support the basic proposition of disarming Hussein by force, that support is strongly conditional on obtaining UN approval for any war," reported Newsday on February 23rd.

posted 07-21-2003 09:24 PM            

Washington didn't cross the river to be stopped at a checkpoint or to have his urine collected.

Restore the Republic or Starve

Tom Chittum July 21 2003

American is heading toward the edge of an abyss. We must restore our Republic before we tumble into the abyss, because chaos, war and starvation are at its bottom. We must restore our Republic, because only by restoring our Republic can we reverse course and avoid imminent global depression and global war. We must remove all the New World Order Globalists and all the New World Order Zionists from both Congress and the White House. If we remove these two groups of criminals and replace them with non-crooks, then our Republic will be sufficiently restored to avoid both global war and mass starvation.

To help restore our Republic, I intend to donate money to all presidential candidates who are not stooges of the New World Order, and I will vote for one of them in the next election. Currently, the only non-stooge presidential candidate that I am aware of is Lyndon LaRouche, who is running for President as a Democrat. Many things about Mr. LaRouche give me pause, but he is a sane and honest man, and he knows who the crooks are, and he will reverse the mad rush towards global war and depression.

I know what a lot of you are thinking right now, "Screw voting for anybody! The Zombies will starve to death before they wake up, and the voting machines are probably all rigged anyway. I think I'll just wait until everything breaks down so bad it looks like a Mad Max movie. Then we can all have some fun, if you know what I mean. Chuckle! Chuckle! Chuckle!"

Maybe the voting machines aren't all fixed yet. Maybe a few of the Zombies will wake up. Maybe this. Maybe that. Whatever. We've got to try voting them out, because no matter how long the odds are, voting them out is the only alternative to falling into the abyss. If the British-puppet Globalists and their Zionist henchmen remain in control, they will starve and murder millions of us. Not all of you will survive, and those who do are not likely to get what they want, because a lot of the rave previews of this coming mess were puff pieces written by hacks on the studio payroll.

Hey, I've got some news for a lot of you movie fans. If it comes to Mad Max Time here in the States, the script is going to be straight out of Langleywood Studios. Yup, those same fun-loving neo-con impresarios currently knocking 'em dead in Iraq with their latest smash hit, "Kiss My Ass While I'm Stealing All Your Oil or I'll Kill You!"

If it hits the fan in our Glorious Empire, most of the hell raisers and Zippo dudes are going to be fighting for causes and people that are not as advertised. For instance, some neo-Confederate may think he's in the Robert E. Lee Volunteer Militia or whatever. Not really, guys. The South might become one giant, sleepy plantation once again, but the Confederate veterans will be the ones saying "yesa massa," and serving up the mint juleps to their new landlords, guys like Baron David de Rothschild.

The Chicanos who go bonkers and join in the fun may think they are liberating Aztlan, but in truth they'll more likely be clearing California for something like maybe a giant ranchero for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. And the surviving little brown people will dance for Her Majesty whenever she visits.

The British Monarchists and their Zionist banker friends tried to lay waste to America and destroy our republic once before. They almost succeeded during our first Civil War, which they conceived, planned, instigated and sustained. It was their baby, not ours. If you don't believe me, then you should read "Treason in America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman," by Anton Chaitkin. It's out of print and hard to find. Fortunately, much of the information in Chaitkin's book can be found at the Schiller Institute web site.

Here, in a nutshell, is what the Civil War was really about. The British Monarchists and their Zionist banker pals did not like America for a number of reasons. First, the scum bags had never gotten over the loss of all their real estate in the War for Independence. Also, these monarchists hated republics, and America was very much a real and vigorous republic. Also, America was industrializing and growing by leaps and bounds, and the British simply can't abide any nations that show any potential to eclipse their murderous vampire empire.

The British sent secret agent provocateurs, spies and agitators to encourage ill feeling on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. The secret agents who went south conducted secret meetings with many disaffected prominent Southerners who were beguiled into joining the British plot, and thus became traitors to the American Republic. Meanwhile up North, other British agents likewise beguiled as many violent dimwits as they could, including John Brown, who likewise became a traitor to the Republic when he raided Harpers Ferry. It's a shame that none of these British collaborators were drug to the gallows and strung up for their treason after the war ended. First, it would have been just, and a warning to future traitors. But more importantly, the failure to round up and string up these traitors has left almost all Americans with a completely warped view of what the Civil War was about. It was not about slavery, or states rights, or secession, or any of the other reasons that Americans generally believe it was about.

The Civil War was a British war of aggression designed to smash and breakup the American Republic. Now, the British Monarchists and their banker pals are at it again. Now they are sending our young men to steal oil for their elitist cabal while claiming to fight terrorism.

Soon, they will ignite another civil war here. The Brits are using their same old filthy tricks, stirring up Americans against one another. I know perfectly well that many of the neo-Confederate secessionist groups in America were either founded by British agents, or have been co-opted by them. In future columns I will let you know which ones they are.

And now I want to say this. I am no fan of the American multicultural empire and never have been. In the unlikely event that our Republic is restored, I will immediately begin to work for a Constitutional Amendment which will allow secession. I'm voting for LaRouche because he will restore the Republic, and secession has a real future only if it is done peacefully in a restored Republic. If the Brits and their Banker pals throw the switch and ignite a Langleywood war here, the emerging states will almost certainly be Limey plantations with a Zionist bookkeeper - in other words the NWO, bought and paid for with the blood of duped secessionists and deceived militiamen.

If it unfortunately comes to an instigated war, it is my sincere hope that the fighters on all sides will have the sense to purge their ranks of British agitators, and British dupes, and Zionist manipulators, so that the nations that arise out of the radioactive smoke and millions of corpses will at least be independent Republics.

posted 07-23-2003 12:43 PM            

Television Week

Could the federal government find out what you're watching on TV? Even if you're not the subject of a criminal investigation?

If you're a satellite TV or TiVo owner, the answer is yes, according to legal experts and industry officials.

Under the USA Patriot Act, passed a month after the 9/11 terrorist attack, the feds can force a noncable TV operator to disclose every show you have watched. The government just has to say that the request is related to a terrorism investigation, said Jay Stanley, a technology expert for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Under Section 215 of the Act, you don't even have to be the target of the investigation. Plus, your TV provider is prohibited from informing you that the feds have requested your personal information.

"The language is very broad," Mr. Stanley said. "It allows the FBI to force a company to turn over the records of their customers. They don't even need a reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior."

David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington think tank, said the Cable Act of 1984 gives cable operators greater protection against the Patriot Act. Cable companies do not have to release an individual's records unless the feds show that the person is the target of a criminal investigation. Even then, the individual must be notified of the request, which he can then challenge in court.

"The Patriot Act does not override the Cable Act," Mr. Sobel said.

You couldn't blame the satellite TV industry for feeling a little vulnerable these days. DirecTV, for instance, collects a large amount of individual data, such as program package orders, pay-per-view orders and even online purchases via the DirecTV-Wink interactive shopping service. The Justice Department could ask DirecTV to disclose whether you subscribe to Playboy or purchased Viagra if it would help an investigation.

But Andy Wright, president of the Satellite Broadcasting Communications Association, the industry's trade group, said he does not believe the feds will make frivolous requests.

"They still have to issue a subpoena to get the data," he said. "Even in today's environment, I can't imagine a judge would approve a subpoena that is not warranted."

However, the ACLU's Mr. Stanley said the Patriot Act is different because the government can get the order from the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court rather than a judicial court.

"It's not like a subpoena. The standards are much weaker than [in] a criminal case," Mr. Stanley said.

But Mr. Wright contended that satellite TV viewers should not be concerned that they will be subjected to improper searches. The satellite chief added he's not sure the federal government needs to give dish owners the same protection as cable viewers.

"I would have to study that more before supporting that," Mr. Wright said.
ANXIOUS TIMES

The Patriot Act, which Attorney General John Ashcroft said is crucial to fighting terrorism in the United States, has scared many civil libertarians. However, the possibility that the feds could use the law to learn about your viewing habits has been overlooked until now.

posted 07-23-2003 01:09 PM            

House Takes Aim at Patriot Act Secret Searches
Tue July 22, 2003 10:09 PM ET
By Andrew Clark

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to roll back a key provision, which allows the government to conduct secret "sneak and peek" searches of private property, of a sweeping anti-terrorism law passed soon after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The House voted 309-118 to attach the provision to a $37.9 billion bill funding the departments of Commerce, State and Justice. It would be the first change in the controversial USA Patriot Act since the law was enacted in October, 2001.

The move would block the Justice Department from using any funds to take advantage of the section of the act that allows it to secretly search the homes of suspects and only inform them later that a warrant had been issued to do so.

Supporters of the change say that violates both the U.S. Constitution and the long-standing common law "knock and announce" principle -- which states the government cannot enter or search private property without first notifying the owner.

"Not only does this provision allow the seizure of personal and business records without notification, but it also opens the door to nationwide search warrants and allowing the CIA and NSA to operate domestically," said the amendment's sponsor, Idaho Republican Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter.

The Justice Department recently told Congress that it had already executed 47 "sneak and peek" searches and had sought to delay notification of search warrants in a total of 250 cases, said Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

"I would suggest to you that just one would constitute a threat to our Bill of Rights," he said.

The Patriot Act, which granted broad new powers to U.S. law enforcers, was passed by Congress with little debate in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 and signed into law by President Bush just six weeks after the attacks.

Since then, it has come under increasing criticism from lawmakers and civil liberties advocates from both ends of the political spectrum. The House is now expected to pass the broader spending bill on Wednesday.

"Given its overwhelming passage this evening, the amendment is highly significant and a herald of more fix-Patriot measures to come," said Laura Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office.

posted 07-23-2003 01:24 PM            

Toughen Patriot Act, attorney general says
CONTROVERSY: Law gives government broader powers for searches, monitoring phones.

By KATIE PESZNECKER and NICOLE TSONG
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: July 22, 2003)

United States Attorney General John Ashcroft told federal and local officials Monday the USA Patriot Act should be expanded, not softened, even as protesters gathered nearby and the Anchorage Assembly and state Legislature have passed resolutions protesting the national anti-terrorism law.

Ashcroft charged critics with misconstruing a law that he said broadens the government's ability to nab terrorists. He would like to amplify those powers, he said.

"This is not something novel or new or different," Ashcroft said. "The Patriot Act is simply a way to extend a robust set of tools."

Ashcroft addressed Alaska's Anti-Terrorism Task Force, which includes representatives from 60 federal, state and local agencies. It's one of 93 such task forces around the United States; Ashcroft said he has personally visited about 40 of them.

The attorney general said that in the pursuit of terrorists it's critical that federal and local governments work together. Without the Patriot Act, Ashcroft said, these efforts would be "difficult if not impossible."

The act lowers legal standards for government agents to listen to private telephone calls or search homes. It also grants federal authorities wider access to citizens' personal medical, financial and school records, library records and bookstore purchases.

Congress passed it in the emotional weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But since then, roughly 150 local and state governments have passed resolutions protesting the act. The Alaska Legislature in May nearly unanimously passed a resolution telling local and state law enforcement to refuse to help federal agents pursuing activities approved by the act.

Last week, the Anchorage Assembly adopted a resolution requesting that Anchorage police and other city agencies refuse to help federal agents in ways that violate "the rights and liberties guaranteed equally under the state and federal constitutions."

The Anchorage Police Department isn't sure how to respond to the resolution, said Walt Monegan, acting police chief.

"The idea of sharing information that could save lives or property is very important," Monegan said after Ashcroft's speech. "No one wants to flaunt any action by the city government, but if information is shared and it saves someone, I think that's very important.

"If there is a crime, we're going to be jumping into it."

Ashcroft also met with Gov. Frank Murkowski, federal judges and Department of Justice Employees in Alaska.

Reporters and photographers covering his address were ordered not to approach within several feet of the attorney general, and after his remarks, were limited to asking a total of five questions. Ashcroft evaded answering some of them.

One reporter asked his opinion of Anchorage's and Alaska's resolutions protesting the Patriot Act.

"I believe our relationships are very good," said Ashcroft, who praised Alaska officials as having integrity and being cooperative.

What of Alaska Congressman Don Young's objections to the act? Should the act be changed?

"I think it seems to most Americans that an adjustment may be appropriate," Ashcroft said. It should expand to give federal officers more authority, he said.

He was also asked if the municipality and state can ignore the law.

Ashcroft said it's clear that public safety officers want to stop terrorists.

"Our business is to secure liberty," he added. "We don't invade or undermine it."

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks showed the country needed better communication and interaction between agencies, Ashcroft said. That's what the Patriot Act provides, he said.

"We were always instructed and guided by the principle that we would never work outside the Constitution," Ashcroft said, in explaining the act's creation.

Critics say the Patriot Act erodes privacy and personal freedom. Interest groups across the political spectrum have called for changes.

During Ashcroft's appearance at the Hotel Captain Cook, more than 40 protesters stood in light rain outside, holding signs with messages such as "Dear John, You've Killed the American Dream," "We will not watch what we say" and "Supreme Law of the land is the constitution, not Ashcroft."

Amy Christiansen wore blue cloth around her chest and draped across her shoulder, mocking the cloth Ashcroft ordered placed over a half-nude statue at the Department of Justice last year. She said her outfit demonstrated Ashcroft's agenda, including a justice system that limits citizens' civil liberties.

"I don't feel safe in my own country," said Christiansen, 41, a veterinary technician. "I'm embarrassed to be an American."

UAA graduate student Sol Neely was openly enthusiastic about the resolutions passed by the Anchorage Assembly and the state Legislature. Alaskans are politically conservative but respect civil rights, he said.

"That makes me very proud to be in Anchorage," Neely said.

Assemblyman Allan Tesche, who sponsored last week's Anchorage resolution, said most feedback he has heard on his resolution is positive. Expanding the Patriot Act further would be a mistake, he said.

"Before we further ratchet down on civil liberties, we need to look at (the Patriot Act) and how it has been implemented ," said Tesche, an attorney. "The overwhelming number of people support what we did. So I'm really proud to stand with the Legislature. We have done exactly the right thing."

posted 07-23-2003 01:47 PM            

SENATOR DURBIN BLOWS LID OFF PLOT

BUSH'S CHARACTER ASSASSIN SQUAD

SENATOR: CAMPAIGN OF INTIMIDATION
"AS SERIOUS AS IT GETS"

FOLLOW THE
TRAIL OF SLIME TO ROVE?

In the bowels of the West Wing, the Bush team has assembled a hit-and-run smear operation to fend off growing public outrage and congressional questions about how it abused intelligence reports in the run-up to the Iraq war.

The operation surfaced when the White House leaked to right-wing mouthpiece Bob "No Facts" Novak that the wife of U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson is a CIA agent. Wilson had gone public with his report establishing that Bush’s claim in the State of the Union address about Iraq gaining uranium from Niger was bogus. In revenge for Wilson's professional and patriotic service, the White House used Novak to blow the cover of Wilson's wife.

Not only did this smear compromise U.S. intelligence, not only is it an axe-cleaver threat to Ambassador Wilson and all other truth-tellers – it is a felony.

Next, the White House leaked to cyber-smear meister Matt Drudge that the ABC News correspondent Jeffrey Kofman, who had reported on dismal morale among U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, was gay and, even worse, Canadian.

Drudge admitted to the Washington Post that "someone in the White House communications shop tipped me." Matt blew the source – the Bush White House!

Now, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) is the Bush assassin squad’s latest drive-by target.

Last week, Senator Durbin, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a critic of White House policy, revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency has confirmed that Bush officials worked hard to insure that the false uranium claim, based on forged documents, made it into Bush’s State of the Union.

The White House responded with an orchestrated campaign of leaks to the media, claming falsely that Durbin had compromised national security and that other senators had demanded his removal from the Intelligence Committee.

Durbin exposed the operation in a 45-minute speech on the Senate floor.

"If any member of this Senate . . . questions this White House policy, raises any questions about the gathering of intelligence information or the use of it, be prepared for the worst," Durbin said. "The White House is going to turn to you and attack you. They are going to question your patriotism."

There is an irrefutable pattern here. Drudge has already fingered the White House. Every White House reporter knows that at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue no sparrow falls from any tree without the permission of Commissar Karl Rove, working alongside his henchmen Dan Bartlett and Scott McClelland.

When will the Media Whores begin investigating and exposing this campaign of vilification and intimidation - a campaign to which many of their own fellow journalists have fallen victim since this corrupt regime installed itself into power?

So far, there has been virtually nothing in the news pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, or on CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN. It took Woodward and Bernstein months to track down the sources of the Nixon smear machine. But now, the evidence is out there for everyone to see, almost in real time. Not much shoe-leather is required. Only a basic sense of responsibility and professionalism.

posted 07-23-2003 11:03 PM            

Still believing that there is only Repubicans Vs. Democrats.

The PHONY LEFT/RIGHT paradigm.

While America disintegrates.

posted 07-23-2003 11:21 PM            

The Democrats support the wrong side of the arguments 90% of the time. You support those same arguments. If that doesn't make you a Democrat, it sure does make you confused.

There are only two parties in power in the American system of government....Democrats and Republicans, and that's the way it will always be unless you can convince the two parties to amend the constitution to allow for a third party via a vote by a super majority (I think constitutional amendment requires a 3/4 vote rather than the normal 2/3). T'aint gonna happen unless there is a nuclear attack on Washington while congress is in session and wipes out our current government, in which case the Republican shadow government will take over

posted 07-23-2003 11:28 PM            

Both parties (95% of them) are PUPPETS for the NWO/Illuminati.

You don't have a clue how deep the rabbit hole goes...nor do you care.

Just watch America disintigrate as long as they are allowed to continue.

I know what they really are.

Your shell game of Left vs. Right doesn't mean $#!+ to me.

posted 07-24-2003 12:05 AM            

Just do everyone a favor and not vote...OK?

If you REALLY believe in this stuff, then your vote doesn't matter, right? Do you concede that point?

Just don't vote...Heck...even better if you convince your leftist buddies not to vote as well. Just let the people who really own this country, voting citizens like me, handle things and everything will be alright. Deal?

posted 07-24-2003 12:46 AM            

right you are Mech, that
both sides sold out to the NWO

that Republican rank and file lock step to the NWO is nothing new/
they have always lock stepped to their leaders' orders.

What is new is Democrats also lockstepping to the Bush NWO.

Really disgusting to the party members.

Business as usual to the party leadership.

DLC is the front for the RNC who now control the Democrats' agenda also.

posted 07-24-2003 12:57 AM            

Hey, looks like your buddy Clinton also sold you out, Shat! Now who will you worship? Might as well not vote now. Clinton doesn’t want Dems to win in 2004.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/6363229.htm/

quote:

---

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for," Clinton said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

---

posted 07-24-2003 01:34 AM            

I still have hope for Seek though.

The NWO is real and it aint "Bush's"

posted 07-24-2003 12:12 PM            

The New World Order: Destruction Of Dissent

By Lisa Guliani

From: P Dalton | pdalton@uneedspeed.net

The New World Order: Destruction of Dissent

by Lisa Guliani

"The weak, and those unwilling to make the struggle, soon resign their liberty for the protection of paid men and powerful armies; they begin by being protected, they end by being subjected."

- Unknown Author

At some point in the not-so-distant future, you may find yourself living in a new world very different from the one in which you THINK you now live. In this "new world," you and every other regular citizen are merely marionettes, controlled and manipulated by the unseen hands of a puppetmaster who remains obscured behind a veil of secrecy. Upon this hypothetical stage, in a masterfully designed setting, you and the other marionettes are expendable pawns. You possess control over nothing. Your life, home, money, and future belong not to you - but to those dangling the strings.

Ridiulous? Hardly so. This is exactly what is and has been taking place in America and around the globe for quite some time. Perhaps you've read in previous issues of Babel or The American Free Press about the New World Order, the Controllers, or the Bilderbergers. If you have, then at least these words are familiar and you are aware that there are individuals dictating the actions of not only our government, but of nations around the world. These are persons with power, prestige, tremendous wealth, and position - and they call the shots in our daily lives. Most people aren't even aware of it. Whatever you choose to call them - Puppetmasters, Bilderbergers, Controllers - matters not. They count on the fact that you will remain in a "walking coma," unaware of what is taking place in the world, your country, your state, city, and neighborhood. Perhaps it's time everyone woke up.

Before I continue, I want to state that I love my country. I love the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the spirit in which these documents were written. I believe in the rights, responsibilities and freedoms for which they stand. I believe in the concept of government, and support our troops when they must fight to defend our freedoms. This isn't about my love for America. This is about the New World Order, the Controllers, and a Great Conspiracy that dates back to the 18th century. And so I begin.

Adam Weishaupt was a devoted admirer of the teachings of Plato. Back in the 18th century, he formed a secret fraternity known as the Illuminati. The ideology of this group structured itself similarly to that of the Freemasons. The secret Illuminati fraternity had its origins in Bavaria, and its members claimed to possess superior knowledge about the world. They wanted to use these "truths" to elevate the human race as they saw fit. Their philosophies evolved and sustained, and somewhere around the 1870's were adopted by John Ruskin, an English social critic at Oxford University. Ruskin used his writings and teachings to spread his philosophy, attempting to motivate the "upper crust" of society for the purpose of "civilizing" the world - using the money, education, and breeding of the elite.

One of Ruskin's devotees, Cecil Rhodes, a South African diamond tycoon, decided to use his great fortune to push forward an ambitious scheme to merge the English-speaking people of the world, thereby bringing the globe under a "benign" imperial control. With this thinking in mind, Rhodes and Ruskin, along with their followers, formed another secret society called the Round Table Group in the year 1881. Eventually, the Round Table Groups emerged from secrecy to become the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations and the U.K. Institute For Royal Affairs. These two new groups began the evolution of what has been called a "Jewish-Communist Conspiracy" and their goal was to rule the planet via a New World Order. The New World Order espoused by these groups would be centralized around a one- world government. That's right - ONE government for the WHOLE WORLD. It is said that the Bilderbergers are directly descended from the lines of the "Satanist-Marxist Illuminati," the Round Table Groups, the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, and the U.K. Institute for Royal Affairs.

The Bilderbergers today, (named after the hotel in which their first meeting took place), are considered the "ruling class" of both Western Europe and the United States. There are no members; rather, attendees of these clandestine meetings are called "invitees." An individual is "invited" based on their knowledge, importance, and standing in the world. These are the wealthiest of the wealthy, and the most powerful people on the planet in these times. The "invite list" includes those persons in power and those being groomed for such positions in the future. What is interesting to note is that every U.S. President since Eisenhauer has attended these secret meetings. This also holds true for British Prime Ministers and their senior Cabinet members. Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, and George Robertson have attended.

Every major banker throughout Europe and the U.S. has appeared at Bilderberger functions. Prince Charles, Bill Clinton, George Bush, to name a very few - are also included on the "List" and have made frequent appearances. David Rockefeller, the top man at Chase Manhattan Bank, is considered a permanent fixture, and together with the Rothschild family, makes up the inner circle of leadership of the Bilderbergers. Henry Kissinger is also on the Executive Committee and shows up at these meetings year after year. His presence is made possible via American Taxpayer dollars. He's not the only one. Many "invitees" appear at the Bilderberger meetings on the American Taxpayer's Dime.

Invitees are culled from government and politics, as well as the fields of Journalism, Academia, and Labor. Their debates take place in both English and French. Their sessions are closed-off, unannounced, their decisions unrecorded, and their speeches are unreported by mainstream media to the public. Outsiders are strictly forbidden to attend these annual gatherings, which are held at different locations each year. The Bilderbergers are also not subjected to any of the little "inconveniences" the rest of us must endure, such as: they suffer no airport formalities, are not required to hold Visas, plus they are chauffered around in armored limos with police escort. Imagine a Hollywood gathering of the most popular celebrities. Could you ever imagine a meeting like that NOT being reported in the mainstream media? Not likely.

A run-down of the "List" shows that the following categories of individuals also attend Bilderberger conferences: royalty, top executives of multinational corporations, leading statesmen, ex-military top brass, and many other powerful lobbyists. Many of the invitees are from both the State and Defense Departments. Their main goal, as in the past, is to see the fruition of a One World Government to be managed exclusively by their selectively chosen candidates, or puppets. Since most ordinary citizens aren't even aware of the existence of the Bilderbergers/Controllers, average folk have little or no knowledge as to the extent that these people have manipulated the public, what they've managed to get away with, or what their intentions are in regard to our very futures.

Did you know that THEY control the world's PRESS, and virtually ALL BANKS and FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS? Are you aware that the Controllers determine whom runs on both the Democratic and Republican tickets? Have you been told that it is THEY who privately SCREEN and CHOOSE America's leaders? Di