North American Union Isn't Going Away

by Jerome R. Corsi

Posted Jan 09, 2007

Michael Medved has now published a second tirade on the issue of North American integration, this time attacking both Joseph Farah and me by name. John Hawkins has also responded briefly on his blog, taking the opportunity to issue yet another ad hominem attack, this time calling me “crazy.” Neither gentleman has yet responded to the substantive arguments or evidence that many of us have produced, demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that North American integration is proceeding full speed ahead in the Bush Administration.Maybe Medved and Hawkins should include the Wall Street Journal in their list of those at whom they cast a flurry of personal abuse and invective. As early as July 2, 2001, Robert L. Bartley, then-editor of the Wall Street Journal, directly supported the idea of creating a North American Union in no uncertain terms, writing an editorial titled, “Open Nafta Borders? Why Not.” Bartley wrote:
Reformist Mexican President Vincente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two Nafta should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grand that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.Michael Medved wrote, “If the plans for a North American Union are coming from forces on the left as marginal as the fringies on the right who worry about such schemes, then there is, indeed, no reason for fear.” Perhaps Medved will want to revise this claim in view of the Wall Street Journal quotation his evidently deficient research failed to uncover.Bartlet’s Wall Street Journal editorial also tied his vision of a European Union evolving out of NAFTA with his endorsement of an amnesty combined with what today we would call a “pathway to citizenship.” His editorial continued, “North of the border, the solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to make it legal, or at least to normalize the movement of people.” Consistently, I have argued that President Bush’s refusal to secure our borders stems from his agreement on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Tex., to enter the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Phyllis Schlafly has written an important piece noting that President Bush at Christmas 2006 pardoned 16 criminals, including five drug dealers. Yet, he has refused to pardon Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were prosecuted under a law intended to punish drug dealers because they attempted to stop at the Mexican border a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana.Do Medved and Hawkins support an open border policy? Do Medved and Hawkins support a guest worker program, even if the new law amounts to an amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already in the United States? Possibly, we can get Medved and Hawkins to answer these questions directly.Medved and Hawkins make much of arguing that American University professor Robert Pastor has specifically gone on the record saying he does not support the creation of a North American Union. Yet, this is only part of the story. I have consistently pointed out that even Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, acknowledged in his memoirs that he intentionally used a stealth methodology to advance his regional government goals. I have referenced an important book by Christopher Booker and Richard North, “The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union,” that presents a careful and exhaustive study of the intentional deception used by proponents to create the European Union. Medved and Hawkins refuse to respond to these points.The EU emerged from an initial coal and steal agreement through an incremental process. Then the 1957 Treaty of Rome created a European Common Market. From this, a European Community emerged. In 1991 at a meeting in the Dutch town of Maastrich, the European leaders drafted a new treaty revising the Treaty of Rome by replacing the European Common Market with a full-fledged European Union regional government. In 1999, 11 European countries decided to phase out their currencies in favor of the Euro by 2002. Those of us writing out against a North American Union and the Amero want to make sure the United States does not go through the same stealth process, a methodology even the editor of the Wall Street Journal endorsed in 2001. I have already advanced from NAFTA to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. What’s next? Medved and Hawkins are typically non-responsive to these points.Pastor’s objections to a North American Union are strictly pragmatic. Pastor has repeatedly called for the next stage to be what he calls the “North American Community.” Pastor wants to put in place a series of institutional structures, including his North American Development Fund,” all resulting in greater North American economic and political integration, such that we all begin to think like “North Americans” rather than citizens of the U.S. Canada, and Mexico. I interviewed Pastor by telephone on Dec. 13, 2006, after Pastor gave an interview in Spanish to the magazine Poder y Negocios. In that magazine interview, Pastor had argued in Spanish that a new 9/11 crisis might be needed to further North American integration. Pastor also expressed frustration that the lame-duck nature of the Bush Administration, the minority government in Canada, and the challenge from the left to Mexico’s new president, Felipe Calderón, were blocking the three governments from moving toward integration fast enough. With Pastor’s permission, I recorded my interview with him. I am going to reproduce here from the transcript a relevant segment of my interview with Pastor, in which I asked him a number of questions to determine if his objection to a North American Union was on pragmatic grounds.
A lot of what you argue is incremental. First, for instance, we have NAFTA, then the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which is in place right now. You have called the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled, Building a North American Community, a blue print for SPP. Now, you are advocating a next stage, which you call a North American Community. That sounds like an incremental advancement on North American integration, which, absent a crisis, is what you are recommending.PASTOR: Yes. What I am recommending is a series of functional steps. You could call them incremental, although I think they are a little bit more than incremental. Each of the proposals that I have laid out do represent more than just small steps. But it doesn’t represent the leap toward a North American Union, or even to some confederation of any kind. I’m not representing that. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary, or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.But, I want to concentrate on that, what you just said, “at this stage.” In your book Toward a North American Community you lay out three or four different ways that economic integration could lead to political integration, and there, as in this interview, you reject them. But your rejection is largely on pragmatic grounds, which could be summarized as “the countries aren’t ready yet.” It doesn’t sound like your saying that a political union is an inherently bad idea.PASTOR: Oh, I don’t think a political union is an inherently bad idea. Nor do I think it is a good idea for North America right now.Again, “right now” is the key part of that statement.PASTOR: I teach a course at American University in which I look at the different options and I put them before the students. The reason it is not a good idea at this state, perhaps ever, is because of people like yourself who begin to fear that their sense of America could disappear and therefore they become resistant to ideas that are as simple as obvious to me as creating transportation corridors between the three countries that trade more with each other by land than with any other countries in the world. To me that seems just straightforward. But if you’re fearful that somehow America’s sovereignty will disappear even if you just take these small steps forward, then you don’t do anything. Then you’re just mired in the status quo. Actually you’re not in the status quo, because in this world which is moving very rapidly you can’t stay competitive if you don’t move.We probably have some disagreements beyond fear. I might believe that the structure of laws we have in place in the United States is superior to what a regional configuration would be, even as demonstrated in Europe. That would be a separate argument than fear.PASTOR: That’s fair enough. I’ve just laid out one possible motive, I think there are others. And I think there are on each of these issues questions that I think should be on the agenda for discussion among the three publics. There are legitimate arguments on both sides.So, Pastor acknowledges that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the North American integration debate and, contrary to Medved and Hawkins, Pastor was not abusive simply because I disagree with him. When asked specifically if he would say that a North American Union formed as a regional political government was an inherently bad idea, Pastor declined to do so. Moreover, Pastor admitted in the telephone interview that a main reason he rejects the idea of a North American Union right now is because of the opposition I have launched, based on my desire to preserve and protect U.S. sovereignty. One suspects Pastor would have preceded full speed ahead with full political integration of North America, if he had not encountered our strong resistance. Pastor is a globalist. Later in the interview Pastor said, “Globalization is a net plus for the world economy, for the middle class, and for all people.”Medved and Hawkins make much of the argument that Pastor’s views are not influential upon public policy because Pastor, an adviser to John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign, is not part of the Bush Administration. Nor is Pastor affiliated with any Bush Administration official at a top policy-making level. Yet, during the Carter Administration, Pastor served on the National Security Council, where he played a major role in the decision to hand the Panama Canal over to Panama via a treaty that Pastor helped negotiate. Had John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election, Pastor may have emerged once again with an influential policy job in the administration.Besides, do Medved and Hawkins seriously want to argue that academic arguments have no influence upon the formation of public policy? Pastor was a co-chair of the task force that authored the Council on Foreign Relations task force report titled, “Building a North American Community.” In his career, Pastor has alternated between government and academic positions, while continuing to serve non-governmental organizations such as the North American Forum on Integration, where Pastor currently serves on the board of directors. Pastor now has spent over a decade advancing his ideas about how North American integration should advance, in academics, in government, and as a key player in well-positioned non-government organizations that seek to impact public policy. So, let me ask once again, what exactly do Medved and Hawkins find annoying—that a NAU and the Amero could be the end result of the North American integration currently happening, or that I might suggest the Bush Administration could be following the Jean Monnet path intentionally? Again, gentlemen, we would appreciate a direct answer to the question.Medved clearly seems most concerned that no one should criticize Bush, especially now that the 110th Congress has begun under Democratic control. Somehow appointing himself as a cheerleader for the conservative movement, Medved argues that we need “a united Republican Party and a re-energized conservative movement that isn’t distracted and paralyzed by non-existent threats concerning non-existent plans to terminate the independent survival of the United States.”Yet, while Medved has gyrated hysterically, he has evidently not taken up the challenge to study and discuss calmly the many issues I have raised concerning government websites and other public documentation. Does Medved simply dismiss the Department of Commerce website that documents the trilateral working group activity proceeding under SPP? Has Medved ever looked at the Texas Department of Transportation website that documents the 4,000 miles of Trans-Texas Corridor super highways that TxDOT aims to build over the next 50 years with financing from Cintra, the investment consortium from Spain? Nor do I agree that Republican Party unity is either a necessary or a sufficient condition to obtaining a re-energized conservative movement. Resisting Bush on immigration might do far more to re-energizing the conservative movement than blind adherence to the immigration policies the Bush administration has advanced. Unfortunately, as the term RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) suggests, being Republican today is not by definition equivalent with being conservative. In the final analysis are Medved and Hawkins basically just Republican Party apologists?Perhaps Medved has opposed Democrats on the radio so long that he considers it his responsibility to keep Republicans in office at any cost. I disagree. One of the main reasons much of the conservative movement has parted ways with the Bush Administration over the past two years is because of Bush’s determination to pursue guest-worker amnesty legislation rather than to secure our borders. No matter how much cheerleading Medved does, much of the conservative movement will oppose Bush strongly once again if the administration moves in the 110th Congress to push a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill such as S. 2611, the immigration bill co-sponsored by Senators Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and John McCain (R.-Ariz.). Regardless of how much Medved attacks me, many conservatives are preparing right now to oppose Bush if the administration goes down an open-borders path that many conservatives, as well as the U.S. public, have already soundly rejected. But character assassination seems to be Medved’s preferred methodology. Somewhat surprisingly, Medved has returned to mine the ground of my old Free Republic comments. Medved, who appears to have a deficiency in his ability to do solid research, may not realize that I have repudiated those comments and apologized for them long ago. As I have explained many times, the statements on Free Republic were written to be sarcastic, some of them to be ironic, others just to be provocative. The comments, as Medved presents them, are totally out of context and not reflective of my true views. On the subject of what I truly believe, I am the final authority. Let me again state for the record that my history of working to support the state of Israel attests to my true affection for the Jewish people worldwide. Nor am I anti-Catholic, since the truth is that I was born and raised in the Catholic faith, and I plan to die a Catholic as well.Medved and Hawkins obviously want the argument about North American integration to go away. Unfortunately, their main tactics to date have been to engage in an unrelenting campaign of invective and sophomoric name-calling, tactics which in truth more disgraces them than those of us against whom their vituperation is aimed. Still, I want to thank once again Medved and Hawkins for the continuing attention they are drawing to my arguments and the issue of North American integration. Somehow, Medved, an author himself, seems to object that I might make an economic living by writing. Until now, I had always assumed Medved was a capitalist, seeing how strongly he protests that he is now a conservative. Maybe that is another assumption about Medved that I will have to reconsider. At any rate, Medved should be aware that his histrionics do more to sell books for me, regardless whether Medved ever deigns to afford me the dubious honor of appearing on his radio show, or not. Far from being indignant, as Medved mistakenly assumes I am, the truth is that I am actually currently appreciative of the controversy. Medved should be advised, however, that appreciation and tolerance from those of us he is determined to malign may not be unlimited, as Columbia University may soon have the opportunity to discover.
Copyright © 2007 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Hamas: We'll obtain U.S. money

read this and "Al Qaeda a Kremlin Proxy? " below and find our foreign aid (who knew!) is going directly into terrorist and Communist hands...

Washington providing $86.4 million to bolster Abbas security forces
Posted: January 8, 200712:33 p.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
JERUSALEM – A portion of $86.4 million in aid the United States pledged last week to bolster security forces affiliated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party will fall into the hands of the Hamas terror group, Hamas officials told WND.
Also, a leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, a terror group allied with Hamas, told WND his organization is planning attacks against Israel using weapons recently transferred to Fatah by the U.S. and Egypt.
The Popular Resistance Committees leader said attacks using the foreign weapons are meant "to prove the Zionist-American conspiracy to bolster forces against us won't work."
"We will obtain the U.S. weapons," the Committees leader said.
(Story continues below)
According to documents revealed Friday, the Bush administration will provide $86.4 million to strengthen security forces loyal to Abbas, including Force 17, Abbas' security detail, which also serves as de facto police units in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Some members of Force 17 also are openly members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization, Fatah's declared "military wing."
U.S. officials confirmed the financial aid is set to be transferred to Fatah.
The multi-million-dollar grant will be used to "assist the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the Road Map (peace plan) to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza," a U.S. government document said.
According to reports confirmed by Israeli and Palestinian officials, the U.S. and Egypt recently transferred rifles and ammunition to Force 17.
Abu Oubaida, a spokesman for Hamas so-called "military wing," told WND his terror group will obtain any weapons transferred to Fatah militias or purchased by Fatah using the incoming U.S. aid.
"I am sure that like in the past, this $86 million from America will find its way to the Hamas resistance via the honorable persons in the Fatah security organizations, including in Force 17. I can confirm 100 percent that this money and purchased weapons will find its way to Hamas," said Abu Oubaida.
The Hamas spokesman and other Hamas officials said "scores" of Fatah militants have switched over to Hamas in recent months.
Sources close to Hamas said the Fatah militants, including members of Force 17, worked with Hamas after receiving larger paychecks from the terror group.
"When they join Hamas, they bring along their new weapons," said a Hamas source.
A senior Fatah security official in the Gaza Strip, speaking on condition his name be withheld, confirmed to WND Fatah has a "significant problem" of its militia members in Gaza joining Hamas.
In an interview with WND, Muhammad Abdel-Al, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, said his terror group would likely obtain weapons and aid given to Fatah.
"We vow to show the Israelis very soon the weapons lately channeled to the Presidential Guards (Force 17) and to the Fatah security services will be directed against the (Israeli) occupation," said Abdel-Al
"In all the security services, including in Force 17, there are activists affiliated with all the Palestinian groups, including ours, and Hamas," he said. "We vow that there will be no use (of these arms) in a civil war, as we promise that should these arms reach us, we will use them against the occupation and the Zionist enemy."
The Popular Resistance Committees is a coalition of several Palestinian terror groups and is responsible for scores of anti-Israel shootings and rocket attacks. The Committees is also accused of carrying out a bombing in 2003 on a U.S. convoy in Gaza in which three American contractors were killed.
A Committees leader told WND his group is planning terror attacks using American and Egyptian weapons recently transferred to Fatah and obtained by the Committees.
He said when the attacks occur, the Committees will announce the foreign weapons were used.
The reports of U.S. aid to Fatah comes after weeks of factional clashes between Fatah and Hamas, which have engaged in heavy firefights since Abbas last month called for new Palestinian elections in a move widely seen as an attempt to dismantle the Hamas-led PA.
According to reports here confirmed by Israel, Egypt last month transferred 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 20,000 magazines and 2 million rounds of ammunition to Fatah security organizations in the Gaza Strip to bolster the groups in clashes against rival Hamas factions.
WND reported the U.S. sent assault rifles and ammunition last month to Fatah groups in Gaza. The weapons were delivered by an Israeli army convoy, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials involved in the transfer.
Also in May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced Israel aided in delivering a shipment of U.S. weapons to Fatah.
Abu Yousuf, a senior member of Fatah's Force 17, which received the Egyptian and American weapons, told WND the arms shipments will be used to attack Jews and "fight Israeli occupation."
Like many Force 17 members, Abu Yousuf, openly serves in the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group.
"These weapons will be used to fight Israeli occupation forces, especially to defend against Zionist aggression in the Gaza Strip," said Abu Yousuf.
The Fatah militant accused Egypt and the U.S. of attempting to generate Palestinian civil war by arming one faction against another.
Abu Yousuf went on to hint new weapons provided to his group with the help of Israel could be shared with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.
"During our official service and during our job hours we are soldiers (in Force 17). What we do in our free time it is our business. Of course, as members of Fatah, some of us are members in the Brigades and we take part in the defense and protection of our people and in the fight against the Israeli occupation," Abu Yousuf said.
Both Israel and the U.S. State Department consider the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to be a terror organization. But U.S. policy calls Fatah "moderate" and dictates the Brigades is a separate entity, but still affiliated with Fatah.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, together with Islamic Jihad, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis. The Brigades also has carried out scores of deadly shooting and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians in recent months.
All Brigades leaders are also members of Fatah. Abbas last June appointed senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Mahmoud Damra as commander of Force 17. Damra, who was arrested by Israel in November, was on the Jewish state's most-wanted list of terrorists.
U.S. weapons prompting Palestinian arms race?
Meanwhile, Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' so-called military wing, told WND the U.S. aid and weapons shipments have prompted a Palestinian arms race.
The Hamas leader said weapons procured as a result of the U.S. shipment will be used against Israel.
"The more the Americans give Abu Mazen (Abbas) weapons, the more we will have in the future weapons to use against the Israelis, because it incites the different organizations to intensify their own supply of weapons," said Abu Abdullah of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.
According to Palestinian security sources, the increased drive by Hamas to obtain new weapons has raised the price of arms in Egypt and Jordan.
"An M-16 that sold for 6,000 Jordanian Dinar now is worth 10,000 Dinar because Hamas is trying to get more weapons," a Palestinian security source told WND.
Like Hamas spokesman Abu Oubaida, Hamas' Abu Abdullah said U.S. weapons to Fatah would eventually fall into the hands of Hamas:
"These American weapons will be one day the property of all the Palestinian people and its resistance, including Hamas," Abu Abdullah said. "The U.S. gives weapons to Fatah during internal Palestinian clashes, but one day when we go back to carrying out operations together, these [weapons] will be shared."

President Bush Continues To Push America Toward A Police State

some notes in article as well on "singing statements"

by Chuck Baldwin January 9, 2007
President George W. Bush's brand of conservatism is something completely foreign to traditional norms. He has outspent even the most liberal administrations. He has led the nation into undeclared foreign wars under false pretenses. He has bloated the size and scope of the federal government like no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He has consistently promoted "civil unions" for homosexuals. He has increased federal funding for abortion providers at home and abroad. In addition, over the objections of a Republican-controlled Congress, Bush even supported the Clinton gun ban.
However, it is President Bush's preoccupation with turning America into a total surveillance society that separates his administration from any and all others. Before this administration, no conservative president had endorsed the concept of turning the United States into the fulfillment of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, but that is exactly what G.W. Bush is attempting to do.
Under the rubric of fighting terrorism, President Bush has done more to strip the American people of constitutionally-protected freedoms than any administration since Abraham Lincoln. The latest example of Bush's tyrannical tendencies comes in the form of his most recent "signing statement." And please understand that President Bush has issued more "signing statements" than any president in history. In fact, before President Reagan, there was a total of only 75 "signing statements" by all previous administrations. Then, Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton issued 247 "signing statements" combined. So far, President George W. Bush has issued 147 "signing statements" that have challenged constitutional restrictions (upon him) to more than 750 statutes. (Source: The Boston Globe)
After signing a postal reform bill called H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act," President Bush issued a "signing statement" that declared his (Bush's) right to open the private mail of American citizens without a judge's warrant.
According to the New York Daily News, "That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it."
The News continues by saying, "Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
"'The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming,' said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington."
Furthermore, a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim said, "You have to be concerned. It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."
President Bush's decision to grant himself the power to open private mail without a warrant is similar to what he has done in the recent past. Remember that Bush recently said he had the authority to perform warrantless eavesdropping on the American people.
A total surveillance society is something that Americans heretofore understood to be completely contrary to the principles of liberty. Such a society was reserved for Marxist or Nazi regimes, and was repugnant to all true Americans. No More. President Bush has taken the concept of a surveillance society into the mainstream of America's public life and culture. Sadder still is the fact that there is only a handful of people that seem worried about it, and none of these are conservative Christian leaders.
Since G.W. Bush became president, the American people have lost their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendment protections. Their phone calls, emails, and even private discussions can be (and are) monitored by federal police agencies without court order. Beyond that, virtually all of their major banking transactions are constantly monitored, as well as their travel and shopping activities.
The Republican Party has demonstrated that it has no inclination to oppose Bush's New World Order, that is for sure. For one thing, the GOP always was, and still is, the party of Big Business. And just who do you think is getting all the high-dollar federal contracts to do all this national snooping? You bet. The GOP's Big Business buddies.
The national conservative Christian leaders have likewise demonstrated a total disregard for Bush's push for an Orwellian society. After all, they have been too busy enjoying the perks and benefits of sitting at the king's table. Plus, they don't have to worry about being the target of Bush's secret police stings. They are part of the "inner circle," don't you know?
That brings it down to the Democrats. What will Nancy Pelosi and company do to slow down this emerging police state juggernaut? Probably not much. She has made reference to the need to restore constitutional safeguards to Washington politics. But we have heard that kind of talk before, haven't we? The track record of the Democratic Party is hardly reassuring. After all, this is the same bunch that took delight in trashing the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the end, it always comes down to "we the people." Until America's local pastors, local sheriffs, local and state elected officers, and local and state judges begin standing up to this out-of-control federal monstrosity, the slippery slide into fascism will continue. Aw, shucks! I just remembered that most of those people are also on the federal take. Therefore, a return to traditional conservatism is just about out of the question.
Then again, we could do something revolutionary, such as casting aside both major political parties, and start supporting true constitutionalists for a real change in America. The skeleton for such a movement already exists in the form of the Constitution Party. Here is their web site: http://www.constitutionparty.com
One thing is for sure and for certain: we don't need any more "conservatives" like George W. Bush.
© Chuck Baldwin

Al Qaeda a Kremlin Proxy?

By J.R. Nyquist

Last month (please note: "last month refers probably to July 2005 as this article by Nyquist appeared in August 2005) a journalist friend in Poland sent me a translation of an interview with FSB [KGB] defector Alexander Litvinenko. The following testimony, offered by Litvinenko, was published by FAKT. Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko (b. Voreonezh, 1962) served in the counterintelligence agencies of the Soviet KGB, and after 1991, as a counter-terrorism expert in the Central Staff of the MB-FSK-FSB (KGB successor organizations). In 1997 Litvinenko served in one of the most secretive departments of the Russian KGB -- the Department for the Analysis of Criminal Organizations. He was a senior operations officer and deputy head of the Seventh Section. Litvinenko defected from Russia and was granted political asylum by the United Kingdom in May 2001.
In a July 2002 article titled Ayman al-Zawahiri's Russian Adventure, I offered the following analysis: "Given Zawahiri's travels to Russia and China, given the full context of Russia's double game in Chechnya (described in last week’s column), we ought to entertain the possibility that China and Russia secretly supported the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11."
Poland's FAKT contacted Litvinenko after the London bombings last month and the following conversation was reported:
FAKT: Alexander, who, in your opinion, is the originator of this [London] terrorist attack?
A. Litvinenko: You know, I have spoken about it earlier and I shall say now, that I know only one organization that has made terrorism the main tool of solving political problems. It is the Russian special services. The KGB was engaged in terrorism for many years, and mass terrorism. At the special department of the KGB they trained terrorists from practically every country in the world. These courses lasted, as a rule, for a half-year. Specially trained and prepared agents of the KGB organized murders and explosions, including explosions of tankers, the hijacking of passenger airliners, strikes on diplomatic, state and commercial organizations worldwide.FAKT: Could you name ... some of the terrorists prepared at the "special courses" of the KGB-FSB?
A. Litvinenko: The bloodiest terrorists in the world were or are agents of the KGB-FSB. These are well-known, like Carlos Ilyich Ramiros, nicknamed "the Jackal," the late Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Adjalan (he is condemned in Turkey), Wadi Haddad, the head of the service of external operations of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hauyi, the head of the communist party of Lebanon, Mr. Papaionnu from the Cyprus, Sean Garland from Ireland and many others. All of them were trained by the KGB, received money from there, weapons and explosives, counterfeit documents and a communication equipment for carrying out of acts of terrorism worldwide.FAKT: Some may object that each of the listed figures, and the forces supporting them, were engaged in solving their own political problems.
A. Litvinenko: Certainly, all these figures and movements operated under their own slogans; however, none of them especially hid their "intimate" ... relationship with the Kremlin and Lubyanka. There is a simple question: whether the Russian special services would train and finance people and groups that were not supervised by Lubyanka and did not serve the interests of the Kremlin? You understand perfectly, they would not. Each act of terrorism made by these people was carried out as an assignment and under the rigid control of the KGB of the USSR. And [the terrorism] ... is not casual after the disintegration of the USSR and [reform of the KGB]....FAKT: Every terrorist you have named is from 'the old staff' of the KGB. Could you name someone from recent history?
A. Litvinenko: Certainly, here it is. The number two person in the terrorist organization al Qaeda, who they are crediting with the series of explosions in London, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an old agent of the FSB. Being sentenced to death in Egypt for terrorism and hunted by Interpol, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 1998, was in the territory of Dagestan, where for half a year he received special training at one of the educational bases of the FSB. After this training he was transferred to Afghanistan, where he had never been before and where, following the recommendation of his Lubyanka chiefs, he at once ... penetrated the milieu of bin Laden and soon became his assistant in al Qaeda.FAKT: Could you hint at least, where this data comes from?
A. Litvinenko: I can. During my service in one of the most secret departments of the FSB, top officials from the UFSB of Dagestan, who had directly worked with Ayman al-Zawahiri ... were called to Moscow and received high posts.FAKT: What can you say concerning the acts of terrorism in London ? From what region and with what forces was this strike directed?
A. Litvinenko: In reply to this question I can definitely say that the center of global terrorism is not in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or the Chechen Republic. The terrorist infection is spread worldwide from Lubyanka Square and the Kremlin cabinet. And until the Russian special services are outlawed, dispersed and condemned, the terrorism will never stop: bombs will blow up and blood will be shed. Terrorism has no expiration date.... I would like to repeat, that all the terrorists, whom I have named, were supported by the heads of the Soviet and Russian special services - Yuri Andropov, Vladimir Putin, Nikolay Patrushev and others. These people are the main terrorists.... And until we condemn them ... global terrorism will continue.
Such was the FAKT interview with former FSB-KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko. Related to this, in 1998 I asked a former Russian intelligence official how Moscow might successfully pull off a surprise nuclear attack against the United States without suffering a devastating retaliation. He replied without hesitation, saying: "If you ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked an American city with nuclear weapons don't believe it." The attack, he said, would be from Russia.
Even now I don't fully understand how a proxy WMD terrorist attack on the United States would be exploited. Exactly what is Moscow trying to achieve? What is the strategic follow-up? I was told that a mass missile strike on America would follow. I am reminded of San Renxing's recent commentary on a secret Communist Party speech about China's plans to kill 100 to 200 million Americans: "Unable to believe in the existence of such wickedness ... people would rather think the [war] 'speech' cannot be true or it's not to be believed."
I will end this commentary with a quote from the text of Viktor Suvorov's Spetsnaz.
[Widespread terrorist and sabotage operations in advance of World War III] are known officially in the GRU as the "preparatory period," and unofficially as the "overture." The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy's morale, create an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy's armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each of which may be the object of the next attack.
The overture is carried out by agents of the secret services of the Soviet satellite countries and by mercenaries recruited by intermediaries. The principal method employed at this stage is "gray terror," that is, a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union. The Soviet secret services do not at this stage leave their visiting cards, or leave other people's cards. The terror is carried out in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organizations.

Reincarnation of the Reds (by the Greens)

by Ilana Mercer

Primitive man worshipped nature and imbued inanimate things with human qualities. So do environmentalists.
James Lovelock, one of the movement's godheads, and the godfather of the Gaia hypothesis, imbued the earth with mystical powers. The Lovelock-inspired concept of "planetary consciousness" is really a philosophical excrescence of animism, "the belief that natural objects, natural phenomena and the universe itself possess souls."
(Column continues below)
Nature worship is a form of this fetishism. Primitives worshipped idols and amulets but also conferred divine honor on the sun, moon, mountains, rivers, trees and animals; air, fire and water. Environmental animists à la Lovelock believe that to tamper with one aspect of the interlocking system of "organisms, surface rocks, oceans and atmosphere" is to tempt fate.
To quote Lovelock's adoring acolytes at the New York Review of Books, this balance is now being disrupted by "our brief binge of fossil fuel consumption." Reduce ocean levels of algae and "teeming billions will perish," or so they say.
Most of Lovelock's earlier gloomy predictions have not panned out, but this has done nothing to cool the reverence he receives from media. They, like Lovelock and his ilk, aim not to "save" men, but to subjugate them to Mother Earth. Indeed, major media have had a good reason for pushing apocalyptic climate-change theories for over a century.
"A global central planning authority is implicit in all potential international efforts to combat alleged global problems," explains economist George Reisman.
Environmentalism is socialism revived; the Greens are the Reds incarnated.
In his seminal work, "Capitalism," Reisman elaborates on the philosophical affinity between these maniacal movements: The Reds argued that "the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as 'exploitation,' 'monopoly' and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity"; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage."
Republican Sen. James Inhofe recently traced the historical arc of media hysteria: "[F]or more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."
The Business and Media Institute, a valiant defender of the free market, is in agreement, after "conducting an extensive analysis of print media's climate change coverage back to the late 1800s." Its report, ""Fire and Ice," found that "the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again and, perhaps not so finally, warming":
"Many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including the New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895."
Warnings of an approaching ice age lasted well into the 1920s. Then, an imperceptible warming in the earth's surface saw the Times begin to blow hot air about global warming. This phase ended when, in the 1950s, Fortune magazine heralded an Ice Age. For some time, the Times remained suspended in journalistic permafrost but soon warmed, in 1975, to the idea of "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable," to quote its headline. Hot on the heels of this cold cycle, the paper joined the current crop of Chicken Littles to bewail global warming.
That's right, not so long ago they clucked about global cooling; now they claim the sky is falling because of global warming.
More fundamentally, theirs is, ultimately, an "argument" against continued economic progress. Be it warming or cooling, the goal is the same: Climate kooks want to scale back the market economy that is responsible for the magnificent living standards enjoyed in industrialized countries.
To accomplish this unchanging ambition, these mutant Marxists have had to create a theory that can't be falsified – the kind of "theory" Karl Popper referred to as irrefutable. As Popper reminded us, "A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is," of course, "non-scientific."
Thus evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate kooks enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns – warm or cold – is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.
Then again, a leap of faith is necessary if one is to sustain a belief that the specimen that designed the microchip and painted the Mona Lisa is no better than a monkey – a creature that has never created anything, lives in trees, throws coconuts and hoots to communicate.

Bush-41 officials in Chinese cargo-monitor deal

Firm connected to communist regime setting up high-tech sensors in U.S.
Posted: December 8, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
GlobeSecNine – a private equity firm composed largely of top-ranking government and military officials from President George H. W. Bush's administration – has investment ties with the communist Chinese firm Hutchinson Ports Holdings that is joint-venturing to place cargo reading sensors on the planned North American superhighway.
The Interstate-35 Super-Corridor is to run from the Mexican port of Lázaro Cárdenas on the Pacific, cross the border at Laredo, Texas, and continue on through Dallas, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and north into Canada.
On April 21, 2005, Savi Technology, Inc., then a private company, created Savi Networks LLC, a new joint venture company, with Hutchinson Ports Holdings to install active RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) equipment and software in participating ports around the world and to provide users with the information, identity location and status of their ocean cargo containers as they pass through such ports.
(Story continues below)
Tom Ridge, the first secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, joined the Savi Technology board April 5, 2005, just prior to the deal.
Savi Networks was capitalized at $50 million from the joint venture partners. Savi Technology holds a 51 percent interest in Savi Networks while HPH holds the remaining 49 percent.
On the same day, April 21, 2005, HPH made a concurrent $50 million investment in Infolink Systems, Inc., the parent company of Savi Technology, which provided HPH with 10 percent of Infolink on a fully diluted basis.
On May 4, 2005, GlobeSecNine, made a $2 million strategic investment in Infolink Systems, Inc., the parent company of Savi Technology.
On June 8 of this year, Lockheed Martin acquired Infolink Systems, Inc., thereby acquiring Savi Technology, Inc.
A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin confirmed to WND that the HPH interest in the joint venture subsidiary, Savi Networks, survived the acquisition of Infolink by Lockheed.
As WND previously reported, Savi Networks is currently negotiating a contract with North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc., NASCO, the Dallas-based trade organization that advocates developing continental trade corridors along Interstates 35, 29 and 94. The contract will allow Savi Networks to establish sensors along the super-corridor that would read RFID tags placed on containers transported by truck and train, including containers from China and the Far East which enter the North American continent at Mexican ports, including Lazaro Cárdenas on the Pacific.
GlobeSecNine's chairman of the board is Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He also was chairman of President George W. Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2005. From 1982 to 1989, Scowcroft also served as vice chairman of Kissinger Associates.
Other GlobeSecNine principals include David D. Miller Jr., former ambassador and special assistant to the president and senior director on the National Security Council for counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics; Gen.Al Gray, former commandant of the Marine Corps and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; John Lawn, former administrator for the Drug Enforcement Administration.
A Feb. 16, 2005, announcement on the website of the Scowcroft Group advised that the Scowcroft Group and GlobeSecNine had formed a strategic alliance to pursue private equity investment opportunities in the homeland defense and security sectors. The investments were expected to be funded by GlobeSecNine through its alliance with the $1.5 billion Bear Stearns Merchant Banking fund.
Attorney Anthony D. Padgett is listed as GlobeSecNine's CEO. Also listed as managing directors are Gregory S. Newbold, a retired lieutenant general in the U.S. Marine Corps, and William R. Sullivan, who previously held senior strategy and management positions at American Express Company and Shearson Lehman Brothers. Newbold, who retired from the Marine Corps in 2002, later emerged as a vocal critic of Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and the decision to invade Iraq.
The website of GlobeSecNine has been closed to public access. The company is listed as operating from offices in Arlington, Va.

Analysts: Dollar collapse would result in 'amero'

see link for full article...by Jerome Corsi

Two analysts who have reconstructed money supply data after the Fed stopped publishing it argue a coming dollar collapse will set the stage for creating the amero as a North American currency to replace the dollar.
The reconstructed M3 data – the broadest measure of money – published on econometrician Gary Kuever's website, NowAndFutures.com, shows M3 increased at a rate of 11 percent in May, compared to 9 percent when the Federal Reserve quit publishing M3 data earlier this year.
Asked why the Fed decided to stop publishing M3 data, Kuever told WND, "The Fed probably wants to hide how much liquidity is being pumped into the market, and I expect the trend to keep pumping liquidity into the market will continue, especially since the economy is slowing down."

Military Commissions Act: A Precursor To Tyranny?

by Chuck Baldwin December 5, 2006
In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas recently discussed President Bush's support for the Military Commissions Act. During the interview, Paul said that "the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities."
Paul also warned that "the Military Commissions Act and the Defense Authorization Act . . . essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus."
Paul continued by noting, "Right now we don't have concentration camps, but . . . the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus." He then said, "If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun?"
Couple the implementation of the Military Commissions Act with the already-passed USA Patriot Act and all the legalities necessary to completely eviscerate America's constitutionally-protected liberties are in place. Think of it. Without firing a shot or dropping a bomb, President George W. Bush has done more to strip the American people of their liberties than all the world's despots and dictators combined!
Consider further the recent statements of former house speaker Newt Gingrich. According to the (Manchester, NH) Union Leader, "Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday [Monday, Nov. 27] in Manchester said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.
"Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a 'different set of rules' may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message."
Of course, Mr. Gingrich did not say how he plans to reduce people's free speech rights. Neither did he say a word about the fact that our greatest potential for terrorism is coming in the form of an invasion of illegal aliens across our southern border, and that it has been the words and policies of one George W. Bush that have mostly contributed to this threat.
Will someone please tell me how expunging the free speech of the American people is going to make the United States safer? And, pray tell, why are our brave troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, ostensibly to "promote democracy," if the same political leaders who sent them to the Middle East are working to shrink democracy here at home?
Ladies and gentlemen, please wake up! Under the leadership of President George W. Bush, rights and freedoms that have been lost to you include your right to an attorney, your right to know the charges being levied against you, the right to a speedy trial, the right to trial by a jury of your peers, the right to not be subjected to torture, the right to not have your home and personal items searched and seized without warrant, the right to not have your personal conversations (including letters and email) intercepted without court order, and the right to not incriminate yourself, just to name a few. And now we learn that our government has authorized and is planning to build "concentration camp facilities."
Furthermore, just because you or I have not yet been personally subjected to this tyranny, does not mean that we won't be! The seeds are already planted; the die is already cast. The time to act is not when you are being carted off to an "undisclosed location." By then, it is too late.
Thank God for Congressman Ron Paul. If it weren't for him, there would be practically no one on Capitol Hill willing to sound the alarm for the American people. I wish someone could convince him to run for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. The GOP would never support his candidacy for president, but the CP would welcome him with open arms. And, given the American people's frustration with both major parties, a serious third party challenge is very possible in 2008.
In the meantime, the power establishment in Washington, D.C., continues to undermine our Constitution and fritter away our freedoms.

NOTE: I was suspect, so checked the Act language itself. Sure enough, those that would have us believe it is meant for "alien" (non-US citizens) only, are missing that oddly in one key section the word alien is used. However, in another section which lays out the definition of "unlawful enemy combantants" the language is much more broad and does not use the narrowing clarifier of "alien."

A U.S. citizen may be an unlawful enemy combatant under section 948a.
Section 948a(1) defines an unlawful enemy combatant as
"(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces; or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."


Section 948b states that "[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants."

What confuses and allows some to claim citizens have nothing to be concerned further about is this clause, where again we see

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.'

So the MCA's procedures apply only to aliens; not to citizens. Nevertheless, Congress has declared that persons falling into the definition in 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are aliens or citizens.
Why does this matter, if the military commission procedures in the MCA don't apply to citizens? The answer is that the government might seek to detain citizens as unlawful enemy combatants using the new definition in section 948a.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld states that the President had authority to detain enemy combatants according to the laws of war based on a fairly narrow definition of the term "enemy combatant":
for purposes of this case, the "enemy combatant" that [the government] is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was " 'part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners' " in Afghanistan and who " 'engaged in an armed conflict against the United States' " there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.The MCA greatly expands the definition of enemy combatants, because it greatly expands the definition of "unlawful enemy combatants." If the government may detain any enemy combatants, a fortiori it may detain unlawful ones. The new definition is fuzzy: it includes citizens who "materially support" hostilities against the U.S. or whom the DoD says are unlawful enemy combatants.
Hamdi, however, states that citizens have the right under the Due Process Clause to contest their designation as enemy combatants. Because section 948a(1)(ii) purports to make determinations of enemy combatant status conclusive, it is unconstitutional to that extent. Moreover, some applications of "material support" in section 948(1)(i) would violate the Due Process Clause or the First Amendment.
But even putting those cases to one side, the new definition is still troubling: there would be many cases where the new definition is not otherwise unconstitutional but sweeps up people who pose no serious threat to national security. For example, suppose a person knowingly lets an al Qaeda operative stay at their house overnight. That person may be in violation of federal law, but it's hardly clear that the government should have the right to detain such a person indefinitely in a military prison without Bill of Rights protections until the end of the War on Terror, whenever that is. The problem with 948a(1) is that it may place Congress's stamp of approval on a definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" that is far too broad and that allows the government to move a wide swath of citizens outside of the normal procedural protections of the criminal justice system and into a parallel system where the Bill of Rights does not apply.
One last point: Section 7(a) of the MCA strips habeas and federal court jurisdiction with respect to aliens. It does not strip jurisdiction with respect to citizens.
However, what if the DoD determines that a U.S. citizen is an alien in a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, claims that its determination is conclusive under section 948a(1)(ii) and ships the person off to Guantanamo? As I noted before, section 948a(1)(ii) is probably unconstitutional to the extent that it suggests that DoD determinations are conclusive. The citizen should still have the right to prove that he is a citizen in a habeas proceeding, and a court must determine that question in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction. To the extent that the MCA would prevent such a determination, it is unconstitutional.

Russia's Interest in Litvinenko

Stratfor: Geopolitical Intelligence Report - November 29, 2006>>> Russia's Interest in Litvinenko>> By George Friedman>> The recent death of a former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander> Litvinenko, apparently after being poisoned with polonium-210,> raises three interesting questions. First: Was he poisoned by the> Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB?> Second: If so, what were they trying to achieve? Third: Why were> they using polonium-210, instead of other poisons the KGB used in> the past? In short, the question is, what in the world is going on?>> Litvinenko would seem to have cut a traditional figure in Russian> and Soviet history, at least on the surface. The first part of his> life was spent as a functionary of the state. Then, for reasons> that are not altogether clear, he became an exile and a strident> critic of the state he had served. He published two books that made> explosive allegations about the FSB and President Vladimir Putin,> and he recently had been investigating the shooting death of a> Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who also was a critic of> the Putin government. Clearly, he was intent on stirring up trouble> for Moscow.>> Russian and Soviet tradition on this is clear: Turncoats like> Litvinenko must be dealt with, for two reasons. First, they> represent an ongoing embarrassment to the state. And second, if> they are permitted to continue with their criticisms, they will> encourage other dissidents -- making it appear that, having once> worked for the FSB, you can settle safely in a city like London and> hurl thunderbolts at the motherland with impunity. The state must> demonstrate that this will not be permitted -- that turncoats will> be dealt with no matter what the circumstances.>> The death of Litvinenko, then, certainly makes sense from a> political perspective. But it is the perspective of the old Soviet > Union -- not of the new Russia that many believed was being born,> slowly and painfully, with economic opening some 15 years ago. This> does not mean, however, that the killing would not serve a purpose> for the Russian administration, in the current geopolitical> context.>> For years, we have been forecasting and following the> transformation of Russia under Vladimir Putin. Putin became> president of Russia to reverse the catastrophe of the Yeltsin> years. Under communism, Russia led an empire that was relatively> poor but enormously powerful in the international system. After the> fall of communism, Russia lost its empire, stopped being enormously> powerful, and became even poorer than before. Though Westerners> celebrated the fall of communism and the Soviet Union, these turned> out to be, for most Russians, a catastrophe with few mitigating> tradeoffs.>> Obviously, the new Russia was of enormous benefit to a small class> of entrepreneurs, led by what became known as the oligarchs. These> men appeared to be the cutting edge of capitalism in Russia. They> were nothing of the sort. They were simply people who knew how to> game the chaos of the fall of communism, figuring out how to> reverse Soviet expropriation with private expropriation. The> ability to turn state property into their own property represented> free enterprise only to the most superficial or cynical viewers.>> The West was filled with both in the 1990s. Many academics and> journalists saw the process going on in Russia as the painful birth> of a new liberal democracy. Western financial interests saw it as a> tremendous opportunity to tap into the enormous value of a> collapsing empire. The critical thing is that the creation of> value, the justification of capitalism, was not what was going on.> Rather, the expropriation of existing value was the name of the> game. Bankers loved it, analysts misunderstood it and the Russians> were crushed by it.>> It was this kind of chaos into which Putin stepped when he became> president, and which he has slowly, inexorably, been bringing to> heel for several years. This is the context in which Litvinenko's> death -- which, admittedly, raises many questions -- must be> understood.>> The Andropov Doctrine>> Let's go back to Yuri Andropov, who was the legendary head of the> KGB in the 1970s and early 1980s, and the man who first realized> that the Soviet Union was in massive trouble. Of all the> institutions in the world, the KGB alone had the clearest idea of> the condition of the Soviet Union. Andropov realized in the early> 1980s that the Soviet economy was failing and that, with economic> failure, it would collapse. Andropov knew that the exploitation of> Western innovation had always been vital to the Soviet economy. The> KGB had been tasked with economic and technical espionage in the> West. Rather than developing their own technology, in many> instances, the Soviets innovated by stealing Western technology via> the KGB, essentially using the KGB as an research and development> system. Andropov understood just how badly the Soviet Union needed> this innovation and how inefficient the Soviet kleptocracy was.>> Andropov engineered a new concept. If the Soviet Union was to> survive, it had to forge a new relationship with the West. The> regime needed not only Western technology, but also Western-style> management systems and, above all, Western capital. Andropov> realized that so long as the Soviet Union was perceived as a> geopolitical threat to the West and, particularly, to the United > States, this transfer was not going to take place. Therefore, the> Soviet Union had to shift its global strategy and stop threatening> Western geopolitical interests.>> The Andropov doctrine argued that the Soviet Union could not> survive if it did not end, or at least mitigate, the Cold War.> Furthermore, if it was to entice Western investment and utilize> that investment efficiently, it needed to do two things. First,> there had to be a restructuring of the Soviet economy> (perestroika). Second, the Soviet system had to be opened to accept> innovation (glasnost). Andropov's dream for the Soviet Union never> really took hold during his lifetime, as he died several months> after becoming the Soviet leader. He was replaced by a nonentity,> Konstantin Chernenko, who also died after a short time in office.> And then there was Mikhail Gorbachev, who came to embody the KGB's> strategy.>> Gorbachev was clearly perceived by the West as a reformer, which he> certainly was. But less clear to the West were his motives for> reform. He was in favor of glasnost and perestroika, but not> because he rejected the Soviet system. Rather, Gorbachev embraced> these because, like the KGB, he was desperately trying to save the> system. Gorbachev pursued the core vision of Yuri Andropov -- and> by the time he took over, he was the last hope for that vision. His> task was to end the Cold War and trade geopolitical concessions for> economic relations with the West.>> It was a well-thought-out policy, but it was ultimately a desperate> one -- and it failed. In conceding Central Europe, allowing it to> break away without Soviet resistance, Gorbachev lost control of the> entire empire, and it collapsed. At that point, the economic> restructuring went out of control, and openness became the cover> for chaos -- with the rising oligarchs and others looting the state> for personal gain. But one thing remained: The KGB, both as an> institution and as a group of individuals, continued to operate.>> Saving the System: A Motive for Murder?>> As a young KGB operative, Vladimir Putin was a follower of> Andropov. Like Andropov, Putin was committed to the restructuring> of the Soviet Union in order to save it. He was a foot soldier in> that process.>> Putin and his FSB faction realized in the late 1990s that, however> lucrative the economic opening process might have been for some,> the net effect on Russia was catastrophic. Unlike the oligarchs,> many of whom were indifferent to the fate of Russia, Putin> understood that the path they were on would only lead to another> revolution -- one even more catastrophic than the first. Outside of> Moscow and St. Petersburg, there was hunger and desperation. The> conditions for disaster were all there.>> Putin also realized that Russia had not reaped the sought-after> payoff with its loss of prestige and power in the world. Russia had> traded geopolitics but had not gotten sufficient benefits in> return. This was driven home during the Kosovo crisis, when the> United States treated fundamental Russian interests in the Balkans> with indifference and contempt. It was clear to Putin by then that> Boris Yeltsin had to go. And go he did, with Putin taking over.>> Putin is a creation of Andropov. In his bones, he believes in the> need for a close economic relationship with the West. But his> motives are not those of the oligarchs, and certainly not those of> the West. His goal, like that of the KGB, is the preservation and> reconstruction of the Russian state. For Putin, perestroika and> glasnost were tactical necessities that caused a strategic> disaster. He came into office with the intention of reversing that> disaster. He continued to believe in the need for openness and> restructuring, but only as a means toward the end of Russian power,> not as an end in itself.>> For Putin, the only solution to Russian chaos was the reassertion> of Russian value. The state was the center of Russian society, and> the intelligence apparatus was the center of the Russian state.> Thus, Putin embarked on a new, slowly implemented policy. First,> bring the oligarchs under control; don't necessarily destroy them,> but compel them to work in parallel with the state. Second,> increase Moscow's control over the outlying regions. Third,> recreate a Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union.> Fourth, use the intelligence services internally to achieve these> ends and externally to reassert Russian global authority.>> None of these goals could be accomplished if a former intelligence> officer could betray the organs of the state and sit in London> hurling insults at Putin, the FSB and Russia. For a KGB man trained> by Andropov, this would show how far Russia had fallen. Something> would have to be done about it. Litvinenko's death, seen from this> standpoint, was a necessary and inevitable step if Putin's new> strategy to save the Russian state is to have meaning.>> Anomaly>> That, at least, is the logic. It makes sense that Litvinenko would> have been killed by the FSB. But there is an oddity: The KGB/FSB> have tended to use poison mostly in cases where they wanted someone> dead, but wanted to leave it unclear how he died and who killed> him. Poison traditionally has been used when someone wants to leave> a corpse in a way that would not incur an autopsy or, if a normal> autopsy is conducted, the real cause of death would not be> discovered (as the poisons used would rapidly degrade or leave the> body). When the KGB/FSB wanted someone dead, and wanted the world> to know why he had been killed -- or by whom -- they would use two> bullets to the brain. A professional hit leaves no ambiguity.>> The use of polonium-210 in this case, then, is very odd. First, it> took a long time to kill Litvinenko -- giving him plenty of time to> give interviews to the press and level charges against the Kremlin.> Second, there was no way to rationalize his death as a heart attack> or brain aneurysm. Radiation poisoning doesn't look like anything> but what it is. Third, polonium-210 is not widely available. It is> not something you pick up at your local pharmacy. The average> homicidal maniac would not be able to get hold of it or use it.>> So, we have a poisoning that was unmistakably deliberate.> Litvinenko was killed slowly, leaving him plenty of time to confirm> that he thought Putin did it. And the poison would be very> difficult to obtain by anyone other than a state agency. Whether it> was delivered from Russia -- something the Russians have denied --> or stolen and deployed in the United Kingdom, this is not something> to be tried at home, kids. So, there was a killing, designed to> look like what it was -- a sophisticated hit.>> This certainly raises questions among conspiracy theorists and> others. The linkage back to the Russian state appears so direct> that some might argue it points to other actors or factions out to> stir up trouble for Putin, rather than to Putin himself. Others> might say that Litvinenko was killed slowly, yet with an obvious> poisoning signature, so that he in effect could help broadcast the> Kremlin's message -- and cause other dissidents to think seriously> about their actions.>> We know only what everyone else knows about this case, and we are> working deductively. For all we know, Litvinenko had a very angry> former girlfriend who worked in a nuclear lab. But while that's> possible, one cannot dismiss the fact that his death -- in so> public a manner -- fits in directly with the logic of today's> Russia and the interests of Vladimir Putin and his group. It is not> that we know or necessarily believe Putin personally ordered a> killing, but we do know that, in the vast apparatus of the FSB,> giving such an order would not have been contrary to the current> inclinations of the leadership.>> And whatever the public's impression of the case might be, the> KGB/FSB has not suddenly returned to the scene. In fact, it never> left. Putin has been getting the system back under control for> years. The free-for-all over economic matters has ended, and Putin> has been restructuring the Russian economy for several years to> increase state control, without totally reversing openness. This> process, however, requires the existence of a highly disciplined> FSB -- and that is not compatible with someone like a Litvinenko> publicly criticizing the Kremlin from London. Litvinenko's death> would certainly make that point very clear.

Kremlin Poison

by J. R. Nyquist
It appears that the Kremlin has attempted to assassinate Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko, whose warnings to the West have been repeatedly cited in this column.
A former lieutenant colonel of the KGB/FSB, Litvinenko wrote a book titled Blowing Up Russia: Terror From Within. During an interview with Rzeczpospolita in July 2005 he explained that al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB (KGB) in Russia along with other al Qaeda leaders. According to Litvinenko, “[there is] only one organization which has made terrorism the main tool of solving political problems.” And that organization, he said, “is the Russian special services.” The KGB trained terrorists all over the world. “The specially trained and prepared agents of the KGB,” said Litvinenko, “have organized murders and explosions, including explosions on tankers, the hijacking of passenger jets, attacks on diplomats, as well as state and commercial organizations worldwide.” Litvinenko added: “The bloodiest terrorists of the world were or are agents of the KGB-FSB. They are well known [like] Carlos Ilyich Ramiros, nicknamed ‘the Jackal,’ the late Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein … [and others].” According to Litvinenko, “All of them were trained by the KGB, received money from there, weapons and explosives….”
It is being reported that Litvinenko was poisoned with thallium, described by the Telegraph (UK) as a colorless and odorless liquid “that is often used to kill rats.” The poisoning occurred in London while Litvinenko was gathering information on the assassination of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Litvinenko has argued that Chechen terrorism is a KGB-inspired provocation used to legitimize Putin’s dictatorship, and that Russia is pretending to fight terrorism with one hand while guiding it with the other. A man brave enough to risk his life to warn others, to lay an accusation against the most dangerous criminals in the world, deserves to be taken seriously. But the fact that his message has been systematically ignored, that no newspaper or politician will discuss his testimony concerning Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a sociological artifact of great significance. The Kremlin’s grand deception strategy has been effective, and there is no danger that the West will figure it out, because the truth is economically inconvenient for politicians and businessmen alike. Things have advanced so far that the Kremlin sees no danger in murdering people outright, as in the days of Stalin. In this way a message is sent to all writers, and all those with bits and pieces of the great puzzle.
The Russian strategy should be obvious by now. We know that China and Iran are being armed with Russian weapons – including Russian nuclear technology. Such moves deserve an explanation, but nobody wants an honest discussion of the problem. Given the economic logic of U.S. statesmanship, a confrontation with Russia is to be avoided. The Left/Right political divide paralyzes any and all realistic analysis because one side of this political divide is incapable of acknowledging a Russian threat while the other has attached itself to claims of victory and the prospect of “open” markets in “former” communist lands. We know that Russia is working to form various alliances with countries like Brazil, India, Venezuela, etc. We know that Russia and China have formed an intimate partnership, that they have conducted joint military exercises, and that China has been cultivating Mexico as a strategic partner. The balance of power is shifting, perhaps decisively, and the results of that shift may soon become apparent to everyone. The Iranian nuclear crisis serves to dramatize this shift. Three years ago President Bush would have bombed Iran. Today he is timid, hesitant and beleaguered. Many of the president’s supporters have turned against him. Perhaps President Bush realizes that a preemptive attack on Iran will divide the United States politically, with further consequences to the Republican Party.
Looking back at the long row of fallen dominoes, from South Africa and the Congo to Venezuela and Germany, the fall of the Israeli domino stands in prospect. The Israelis believe the neutralization of Iran’s nuclear project is essential to Israel’s security. Israeli analysts are already warning that Iran could destroy Israel without launching a single nuclear weapon, because many Israelis will leave Israel if Iran becomes a nuclear power. The morale of the Jewish state would suffer a crippling blow. But the plight of Israel does not move the American public. Just as the American consumer abandoned Vietnam to the Communists, some believe that Israel will be abandoned to the Islamists. Many observers expect that the Americans will not remain loyal to their allies, choosing instead to “cut and run” when things become difficult. After all, it was the Americans who abandoned Southeast Asia. It was the Americans who pushed for the Communist takeover of Rhodesia, and the Communist-ANC takeover of South Africa; and who allowed the Communist victories in Angola and Congo. The African Communists have won the long war for the mineral rich sub-Saharan region. And the Americans don’t care in the least. In fact, we are about to watch the United States Congress cut the legs out from under the government of Colombia as it struggles to contain a growing Communist insurgency.
The suicide of the West is happening before our eyes. From the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, from the fall of South Africa to the electoral victory of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, the same old Communists continue to kill their enemies as they advance from victory to victory. The KGB rules Russia openly, flooding China with weapons, encouraging Iran’s nuclear ambitions, arming Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, subverting the Western alliance through economics, neutralizing Germany by way of German unification, undermining NATO as one Warsaw Pact country after another joins under false democratic colors. Do the Americans have eyes? Do they have sense?
Yesterday American strategy was based on a false victory. Today the logic of retreat takes hold as the party of retreat takes Congress. In terms of Iran’s WMDs, American politicians see no other choice than to sacrifice Israel to the “peace process.” It will prove to be a slow and grinding death, similar to that of white South Africa. The grim prospect is so real that former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already compared his country’s fate to that of Czechoslovakia (sold out to appease Hitler). The West will do nothing to punish Vladimir Putin for assassinating and intimidating journalists, for poisoning Alexander Litvinenko. The West will do nothing about the Iranian bomb. The Americans will eventually leave Iraq, and America’s cities will be attacked by nuclear weapons. In this sequence one failure leads to another. Weakness, lack of resolve, stupidity and incompetence add up to defeat.
From outward appearances it would seem that the old Soviet Union has returned. A thing crucified, dead and buried has been resurrected. Four weeks after Vladimir Putin’s re-election, a procession led by the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church arrived at the Church of Christ the Redeemer in Moscow. In keeping with ancient tradition the doors of the church were shut, symbolizing the sealed cave where Christ’s body was placed following crucifixion. “After midnight,” noted Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, “the Orthodox faithful taking part in the procession await the opening of the church doors. The patriarch stands on the steps at their head and is the first to enter the empty temple where the Resurrection of Christ has already occurred.” In due course the Patriarch offered up a prayer, the doors of the Church of Christ the Redeemer were opened and out stepped President Vladimir Putin. If any Christians were present for this ceremony they offered no protest to this blatant sacrilege. The woman who reported this event for the benefit of Western readers has since been assassinated. The KGB defector who was investigating the circumstances of her death has been poisoned (i.e., Litvinenko). The West thinks it an amusing spy story, something out of fiction. But the situation is hardly amusing. As Russian dissident Yuri Yarim-Agaev recently explained to Jamie Glazov of Frontpagemag.com, “That in foreign policy, the U.S. remains for them [Russia] enemy number one, and that they would support anyone who tries to undermine American power whether it be North Korea, Iran, you name it. That in domestic policy they consider their major enemies democracy, human rights, and the free market, and they will try to suppress them by all means, and the bring back under their control most parts of the former Soviet Union.”
Russia is a big player, despite what we’ve been told about “the fall of communism.” The Kremlin now acts boldly, in the open, so that every Russian understands. It is a case of terrorism. It is a case of instilling fear. Writers are being killed, and now intelligence defectors have been targeted. Decisive cards are being played, and the international press, the public and many politicians are clueless.
© 2006 Jeffrey R. Nyquist

Many unaware of plan to replace dollar with N. American currency

London stock trader urges move to 'amero'Says many unaware of plan to replace dollar with N. American currency
Posted: November 28, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
In an interview with CNBC, a vice president for a prominent London investment firm yesterday urged a move away from the dollar to the "amero," a coming North American currency, he said, that "will have a big impact on everybody's life, in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico."
Steve Previs, a vice president at Jefferies International Ltd., explained the Amero "is the proposed new currency for the North American Community which is being developed right now between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico."
The aim, he said, according to a transcript provided by CNBC to WND, is to make a "borderless community, much like the European Union, with the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso being replaced by the amero."
Previs told the television audience many Canadians are "upset" about the amero. Most Americans outside of Texas largely are unaware of the amero or the plans to integrate North America, Previs observed, claiming many are just "putting their head in the sand" over the plans.

CNBC asked Previs whether he thought NAFTA was "working and doing enough."
He replied: "Until it created a lot of illegal immigrants coming across the border. I don't know. You get the pros and cons on NAFTA. For some people it is a good thing, and for other people it has been a disaster."
The speculation on the future of a new North American currency came amid a major U.S. dollar sell-off worldwide that began last week.
Yesterday, the dollar also reached new multi-month low against the euro, breaking through the $1.30 per euro technical high that had held since April 2005.
At the same time, the Chinese central bank set the yuan at 7.0402 per dollar, the highest level since Beijing established a new currency exchange system in 2005 that severed China's previous policy of tying the value of the yuan to the U.S. dollar.
Many analysts worldwide attributed the dramatic fall in the value of the U.S. dollar at least partially to China's announcement last week that it would seek to diversify its foreign exchange currency holdings away from the U.S. dollar. China recently has crossed the threshold of holding $1 trillion in U.S. dollar foreign-exchange reserves, surpassing Japan as the largest holder in the world.
Barry Ritholtz, chief market strategist for Ritholtz Research & Analytics in New York City, in a phone interview with WND, characterized today's downward move of the dollar as "wackage," a new word he coined to convey that the dollar is being "whacked" in this current market movement.
Ritholtz told WND that yesterday's downward move "was a major market correction that points to the risk of subsequent downside to the dollar."
Asked whether he would characterize the dollar's downside move as signaling a possible collapse, Mr Ritholtz told WND, "Not yet."
Ritholtz pointed out market professionals had long looked at a dollar collapse as a "low probability event," but the recent fall suggests "the probabilities have increased of a major dollar correction, or even of a collapse."
U.S. trade imbalances with China have hit a record $228 billion this year, largely reflecting a surging flow of containers from China with retail goods headed for the U.S. mass market.
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez is in Bejing leading a trade delegation of more than two dozen U.S. business executives.
"The future should be focused on exporting to China," Guiterrez told reporters in Bejing, noting that this year, U.S. exports to China are up 34 percent on a year-to-year basis, surpassing last year's gain of 20 percent.
One way to improve the U.S. trade imbalance may be to ease up on restrictions of exporting high-tech products and allowing technology transfers to China, a move likely to be politically charged in the U.S.
The decline in value of the dollar will also make U.S. exports more attractive and Chinese exports to the U.S. more expensive.
In February 2007, a virtually unprecedented top-level U.S. economic mission is scheduled to travel to China. Included in the mission are Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr., Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Previs declined to be interviewed for this article, telling WND in an e-mail he did not want to be quoted directly in any article that may express a political point of view.

Does Gates pick mean accepting a nuclear Iran?

Does Gates pick mean accepting a nuclear Iran?
Posted: November 9, 2006 by Jerome Corsi

President Bush's decision to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with Robert M. Gates signals to experienced Iran observers that the Bush White House is about to shift direction once again in Iranian foreign policy, moving back to the type of "constructive engagement" strategy that typified the failed Clinton administration policy toward Iran as originated by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
The nomination also suggests stronger Council on Foreign Relations influence on White House thinking than previously recognized.
What is the evidence for these conclusions? In 2004, Gates co-chaired, along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled, "Iran: Time for a New Approach." Brzezinski was best known for his role as national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. The main point of the Gates- Brzezinski task force was to advocate a policy of "limited or selective engagement with the current Iranian government."
(Column continues below)
The language of the Gates- Brzezinski task force could easily have been drawn directly from the foreign policy of Carter as advised by Brzezinski, Clinton under Madame Albright's tutelage, or even Richard Nixon as counseled by Henry Kissinger. Consider the following:
A political dialogue with Iran should not be deferred until such a time as the deep differences over Iranian nuclear ambitions and its invidious involvement with regional conflicts have been resolved. Rather, the process of selective political engagement itself represents a potentially effective path for addressing those differences. Just as the United States maintains a constructive relationship with China (and earlier did so with the Soviet Union) while strongly opposing certain aspects of its internal and international policies, Washington should approach Iran with a readiness to explore areas of common interests, while continuing to contest objectionable policies.
The expected result of the constructive engagement would be to bring Iran into a constructive international dialogue designed to resolve differences. Again, here is the language from the task force report:
Ultimately, any real rapprochement with Tehran can only occur in the context of meaningful progress on the most urgent U.S. concerns surrounding nuclear weapons, terrorism and regional stability.
Instead of arriving at the type of "grand bargain" with Iran that John Kerry pressed during his failed 2004 presidential campaign, the Gates-Brzezinski CFR task force called for "selectively engaging Iran on issues where U.S. and Iranian interests converge."
The growing CFR influence on the Bush foreign policy is consistent with the growing influence of Kissinger on the Bush White House. Kissinger is a CFR luminary who the administration now acknowledges has been a recent frequent guest at the White House for private talks with the president. Another CFR notable, James Baker III, is now heading Bush's Iraq Study Team.
With the appointment of Condoleezza Rice, a James Baker protégé, to be secretary of state at the start of Bush's second term, the administration changed policy to support negotiations with Iran to be led by the EU-3 of France, Germany and the UK, together with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Two years later, those negotiations have predictably stalled in the U.N. Security Council where permanent members Russia and China, both allies of Iran, have blocked any meaningful sanctions.
That Iran under President Ahmadinejad has resumed uranium enrichment in open defiance of the EU-3, the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council should be abundant evidence that negotiations with Tehran will not succeed, unless the negotiations are premised on accepting Iran's asserted right "to pursue the full fuel cycle," which translates to accepting continued uranium enrichment by Iran on Iranian soil.
Despite the failure of these negotiations, the Bush administration appears to be preparing for direct talks with Iran, designed to implement the strategy of constructive engagement.
Notable on the Gates-Brzezinski CFR task force was Frank Carlucci, the former secretary of defense in the Reagan administration who went on to be a founding principal of the Carlyle Group. Financial ties between the Carlyle Group and both George H. W. Bush and Kissinger Associates serve as further backdrop for the interlacing relationships about to play out in the anticipated foreign policy shift the Bush administration is contemplating with regards to Iran.
The appointment of Gates signals an end to any possibility of utilizing a strategy of engineering regime change within Iran, following the path President Reagan utilized to bring down the Soviet Union.
Despite President Bush signing the Iran Freedom Support Act in September 2006, the State Department still has refused to make regime change the official U.S. policy toward Iran.
The State Department also continues to sit upon the millions of dollars Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., have inserted into legislation for the State Department to disburse to non-governmental organizations dedicated to supporting democracy movements within Iran.
Today, the White House disclosed that consideration of the Gates nomination was seriously considered last weekend, giving context to reports coming out of Iran that talks with the U.S. would be considered.
Responding to reports that U.S. and Iraqi officials have suggested U.S.-Iranian talks might take place on regional developments, Iran's foreign minister spokesman, Mohammad-Ali Hosseini, told reporters Monday that "if we receive any formal offer in this regard, we will consider it."
Experienced Iran observers such as Amir Taheri have long counseled that negotiating with the Ahmadinejad regime is unlikely to produce anticipated favorable results. Rejecting a central tenet of the Gates-Brzezinski CFR task force report, Taheri argues that Ahmadinejad's presidency reflects a second phase of the Iranian revolution in which the Shiite regime anticipates regional dominance.
Taheri notes that Iran under Ahmadinejad has continued to finance and re-arm both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza. Writing in the November 2006 issue of Commentary, Taheri makes a strong argument that internal divisions in Iran could even today be exploited by the type of regime change efforts the Reagan administration applied to topple the Soviet Union.
While the Bush administration is likely to resist the conclusion, a shift of policy to engage in direct talks with Iran probably signals a Bush administration acceptance of Iran's continued progress toward nuclear weapons. Iran is unlikely to accept talks with the United States on any other basis than a "no conditions" acceptance of Tehran's current uranium enrichment program at Natanz.