Diplomacy By Deception by Dr. John Coleman

When you have read "Diplomacy By Deception" you will have little doubt that the British and United States Governments are the most corrupt in the world and that without their full cooperation in carrying out the designs of the Committee of 300, this supranational body would not be able to go forward with its plans for a One World Government, to which former President Bush, one of its more able servants, referred to as "the New World Order."

It is my earnest wish that "Diplomacy By Deception" will bring about a greater understanding of how secret societies operate, and how their orders are carried out by the very people who are supposed to serve the national interests and guard the national security of their respective countries and their people.

Dr. John Coleman

1 - The Threat of the United Nations.

The history of how the United Nations was created is a classic case of diplomacy by deception. The United Nations is the successor to the defunct League of Nations, the first attempt to set up a One World Government in the wake of the Paris Peace Conference which gave birth to the Treaty of Versailles.

The peace conference opened at Versailles, France on January 18, 1919, attended by 70 delegates representing the international bankers from the 27 "victorious" allied powers. It is a fact that delegates were under the direction of the international bankers from the time they were selected as delegates until they returned to their own countries, and even long after that.

Let us be perfectly clear, the peace conference was about bleeding Germany to death; it was about securing huge sums of money for the international brigand-bankers who had already reaped obscene re wards alongside the terrible casualties of the five-year war (1914 1919). Britain alone suffered 1,000,000 deaths and more than 2,000,000 wounded. It is estimated by war historian Alan Brugar, that the international bankers made a profit of $10,000 from every soldier who fell in battle. Life is cheap when it comes to the Committee of 300-Iluminati-Rothschilds-Warburg-Federal Reserve bankers, who financed both sides of the war.

It is also worthwhile to remember that H.G. Wells and Lord Bertrand Russell foresaw this terrible war in which millions — the flowers of the mostly Christian nations — died needless deaths. The Committee of 300 planned the war so that international bankers would profit greatly. H.G. Wells was known as the "prophet" to the Committee of 300. It is true to say that Wells merely brought up-to-date the ideas of the British East India Company (BEIC) which were carried out by Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith, to name two of the wreckers used by King George III to undermine and scuttle the economic future of the North American colonists seeking to escape the economic toils of the Venetian Party of the North in the late 1700s.

In an article written by Wells published in the "Banker" (a copy of which I found in the British Museum in London), Wells spelled out the future role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the banker's bank, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). Once we, the sovereign people, understand the role of international banks in fomenting wars, and then financing both sides, wars may well become a thing of the past. Until then, wars will remain the favorite tool of the international banks for raising revenues and getting rid of unwanted populations, as Bertrand Russell so eloquently put it

In his book, "After Democracy," Wells stated that once the economic order (social energy), of a dictatorship One World Government is established, a political and social order will be imposed. This was precisely what the Paris Peace Talks that began in 1919 set out to do, based primarily upon a Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) memorandum.

The RIIA drafted a 23-point proposal which it sent to Woodrow Wilson, who handed it to Mandel Huis, (a.k.a. Colonel House), Wilson's Dutch-born controller. Col. House immediately left for Magnolia, his private residence in Massachusetts, where he reduced the number of proposals to 14, creating the basis of the "14 Points" presented to the Paris Peace Conference by President Wilson in December of 1918.

Wilson's arrival in Paris was greeted with wild enthusiasm by the poor and deluded populace who had grown tired of war and who saw in Wilson, the harbinger of eternal peace. Wilson cloaked his speeches in true diplomacy by deception language; a new spirit of idealism — even while intent on securing control of the world by the international bankers through the League of Nations.

The similarity between the way the League of Nations Treaty and its successor, the United Nations Treaty were floated, should not be lost on the reader. German delegates were kept out of the proceedings until the terms were ready to be submitted to the conference. Russia was not represented, because public opinion violently opposed Bolshevism. British Prime Minister Lloyd George and President Wilson well knew that the Bolshevik Revolution was about to succeed with terrible consequences for the Russian people.

From the start, the Big Ten Supreme Council (forerunners of the U.N. Security Council) took over. The council consisted of,

1. Wilson 

2. Lansing 

3. Lloyd George 

4. Balfour 

5. Pichon 

6. Orlando 

7. Sonnino (both representing the Black Nobility bankers of Venice) 

8. Clemenceau 

9. Saionji 

10. Makino 

On January 25,1919, the agenda of the RIIA won out, the conference delegates unanimously adopted a resolution for the creation of a League of Nations. A committee was chosen (whose members were actually nominated by the RIIA) to deal with reparations by Germany. On February 15,1919, Wilson returned to the United States and Lloyd George went back to London. By March however, both men were back in Paris to work on how best Germany could be financially ripped apart—and the Council of Ten, having proved too cumbersome, was reduced to the Council of Four.

The British invited Gen. Jan Christian Smuts, a Boer War veteran, to join in the discussions, to add an aura of good faith to the deplorable plot. Smuts was a traitor to his own people. As Prime Minister he had led South Africa into the First World War over the objections of 78 percent of its people who felt they had no quarrel with Germany. Smuts became part of the committee consisting of Wilson, House, Lord Cecil controller of the British Royal Family (see my monograph "King Makers/King Breakers"), Bourgeois and Venizelos.

The League of Nations was born in January of 1920. Housed in Geneva, it consisted of a secretary-general, a Council (chosen from the five major powers) and a General Assembly. The German nation was sold down the river, the terms of peace far exceeding those agreed upon when Germany was persuaded to lay down its arms. The The international bankers became the big winners, eventually stripping Germany of all major assets and receiving huge "reparation" payments. The RIIA now felt it had "everything in the bag" to quote Wilson. But the RIIA had not reckoned with a large number of U.S. Senators who knew the U.S. Constitution. By contrast, the number of senators and congressman who really know the U.S. Constitution today, number only about twenty.

For example Senator Robert Byrd, an admitted Rockefeller protégé said recently that a treaty is the supreme law of the land. Apparently, Sen. Byrd does not know that for a treaty to be valid, it has to be made with a country that has sovereignty, and the United Nations, as we will find, has no sovereignty whatsoever. In any case, a treaty is only a law and cannot override the U.S. Constitution, nor can it stand when it threatens the sovereignty and security of the United States.

If Sen. Byrd holds this view, we wonder why he voted to give the Panama Canal away? When the United States acquired the land for the Panama Canal from Colombia, the land became sovereign U.S. territory. Therefore, the Panama Canal give-away was unconstitutional and illegal, as we shall see in the chapter dealing with the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Treaty.

When the League of Nations Treaty was brought before the U.S. Senate in March of 1920, 49 senators understood the immense implications involved, and refused to ratify it There was much discussion compared to what passed for a debate when the U.N. Charter came before the Senate in 1945. Several amendments to the League treaty were submitted by the RIIA. These were acceptable to President Wilson, but were refused by the Senate. On November 19, 1920, the Senate rejected the treaty with and without reservations by a vote of 49-35.

The international bankers then directed Wilson to veto a joint resolution of Congress, declaring the war with Germany at an end, so that they could go on savaging the German nation for another whole year. It was not until April 18, 1945 that the League of Nations dissolved itself, transferring all of its assets (mainly money taken from the German people after WWI, and war loans not repaid by the allies to the United States) to the United Nations In other words, the Committee of 300 never gave up on its plans for a One World Government and waited until the United Nations was in existence before dissolving the discredited League of Nations.

The money that the League of Nations transferred to the United Nations rightfully belonged to the sovereign people of the United States. The United States had advanced billions of dollars to so-called allies to pull their chestnuts out of the fire after they'd picked a quarrel with Germany in 1914 and were in dire danger of losing the fight.

In 1923, a U.S. observer was sent to the Lausanne Conference of the Allied Powers for discussions on repayment of the $10.4 billion owed to the United States, and splitting up the Middle East oil-producing countries between themselves. The international bankers objected to U.S. intervention at Lausanne on the basis of instructions received from Chatham House, home of the RIIA. The first repayment agreement was reached with Britain, which was to repay war loans over a 62-year period, at interest of 3.3 percent

In November of 1925 and April of 1926, the United States reached agreements with Italy and France to repay their share of war loans over the same period. By May of 1930,17 nations who had been loaned money by the United States had signed agreements to repay all of their war loans, amounting to nearly $11 billion.

In November of 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected the first openly socialist President of the United States. Socialist Roosevelt's arrival at the White House had its beginning in the murder of President William McKinley, followed by the election of the fraudulent "patriot" Teddy Roosevelt, whose job it was to open the doors to socialism which was to be ushered in by Franklin D. Roosevelt. This contrived sequence of events is too long be recounted here. On instructions from Chatham House, Roosevelt lost no time in winking

at the horrendous default on the loan agreements signed by the allies. By December 15 1932, all of the nations who owed the United States billions of dollars for war debts were in default Britain was the largest debtor and the largest defaulter.

A substantial amount of this money, plus much of what was wrenched from Germany after WWI, went into the coffers of the League of Nations, and eventually wound up in the coffers of the United Nations. Thus, not only did America needlessly sacrifice its soldier sons on the battlefields of Europe, but had its pockets picked as well by the nations that began the First World War. Worse yet worthless war reparation bonds were dumped into the American financial market, costing taxpayers additional billions of dollars.

If there is one thing that we have learned about the Committee of 300, it is that it never gives up. There is a saying that history repeats itself; certainly this is true of the Committee of 300's intention to force a One World Government body on the United States. H.G.Wells, in his work "The Shape of Things to Come" described this body as "a sort of an open conspiracy — a cult of the World State" (i.e. a One World Government.)

The world state (OWG), Wells said, "must be the sole landowner on earth. All roads must lead to socialism." In his book, "After Democracy," Wells clearly said that once world economic order is established (through the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements), political and social order will be imposed. In the chapter on the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, it will be explained how Tavistock's "Operation Research" was to be the engine to bring about drastic reforms in economics and politics.

In the case of the United States, the plan is not to overthrow the U.S. government or its Constitution, but to "make it negligible." This has largely been accomplished by slowly and carefully implementing the socialist manifesto written in 1920 by the Fabian Society, which was based on the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

Isn't this making of the Constitution "negligible" exactly what is happening? In fact when the U.S. government violates the Constitution on an almost daily basis with total impunity, it makes the Constitution "negligible." Executive orders, such as going to war without a declaration of war, as in the Gulf War, have worked to make the Constitution "negligible." There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for executive orders. Executive orders are only proclamations which the president has no power or authority to make. Only a king can make proclamations.

The warmed over League of Nations was thrust upon the U.S. Senate in 1945, dressed under a new label: the United Nations Treaty. The senators were given only three days to discuss the implications of the treaty, which could not have been fully examined in under least a full 18 months of discussion. Had the senators properly understood what they were discussing, which, apart from a few exceptions, they did not, there would have been a demand for a proper period for discussion. The fact is that the Senate did not understand the document and therefore should not have voted on it.

Had the senators who debated the United Nations treaty properly understood the document it surely would have been rejected. Apart from any other considerations, the document was so poorly written and, in many instances, so vague, deceptive and contradictory, that it could have been rejected on these grounds alone.

A law, which is what a treaty is, must be clearly written and unambiguous. The U.N. Treaty was far from that. In any case, the United States, bound by its Constitution, could not ratify the U.N. treaty, for the following reasons:

1. Our Constitution rests upon the bedrock of sovereignty, without which there can be no constitution. U.S. foreign policy is based upon Vattel's "Law of Nations" which makes sovereignty the issue. Although the Constitution is silent on world government and foreign bodies, when the Constitution is silent of a power, and it is not incidental to another power in the Constitution, then it is an inhibition of that power, or a PROHIBITION of that power.

2. The United Nations is not a sovereign body, having no measurable territory of its own. It is housed on U.S. territory in New York in a building loaned by the Rockefellers. Under the U.S. Constitution, we cannot make a treaty with any nation or body that lacks sovereignty. The United States could not (and cannot) make a treaty with a body or country having no sovereignty. The U.S. can make an agreement with a country or body having no sovereignty, but can never enter into a treaty with a body lacking in sovereignty.

3. For the Senate to have attempted to ratify a treaty with a body, state, or country lacking sovereignty, defined boundaries, demographics, a currency system, a set of laws or a constitution, to whit, the United Nations, was to betray the oath to uphold the Constitution which senators are sworn to do. This is commonly called treason.

4. In order for the United States to become a member of the United Nations, two amendments to the Constitution would have to be passed. The first amendment would have to recognize that a world body exists. In its present form, the Constitution cannot recognize the United Nations as a world body. A second amendment would have to say that the United States can have a treaty relationship with an unsovereign world body. Neither amendment was ever offered, much less accepted by the Senate and ratified by all of the States.

Thus, the thoroughly suspect U.N. "treaty" never was a legal law in the United States. As matters stood in 1945, and as they stand in 1993, although the President has the power to have a say in foreign affairs, he does not have the power, nor has he ever had the power, to make an agreement — much less a treaty — with a world body. This absolutely means that no other world body, specifically, the United Nations, has jurisdiction to deploy American servicemen and women, or to order the United States to act outside of the Constitutional restrictions imposed by our Founding Fathers.

Sen. David I. Walsh, one of the few senators who understood the constitutional dangers posed by the badly flawed U.N. Charter, told his colleagues the following:

"The only acts of aggression or breaches of peace the charter is sure to be geared up to suppress are those committed by small nations, that is to say, by the nations which are least able and unlikely to kindle another world conflict. Even in these cases, Mr. President, investigation and preventative action can be arbitrarily paralyzed by any of the big five powers, which are permanent members of the Security Council..."

"Thus, any small nation which enjoys the patronage, or serves as a tool or puppet of one of the big powers is as immune to interference as the Big Five themselves. Let us face the fact In the Charter we have an instrument for arresting acts of war by countries which lack the power of making war. The menace of large-scale conflict does not reside in quarrels among themselves. Such quarrels can be limited and isolated."

"The menace lies rather when the small powers act in interest of a great neighbor and are provoked into their act by that neighbor. But in that case the veto privilege which makes the big power immune to United Nations action can operate to make the small satellite nation immune. The preventative machinery works smoothly until the point of real danger is reached, the point where a nation is strong enough to precipitate a world war is involved, and can then go dead."

"We may assume, in fact, that every small country could be under temptation and pressure to seek a big power patron. Only in that way can it obtain an indirect share in the monopoly of control vested in the Big Five. One of the faults of the Charter, Mr. President, is that its punitive and coercive leverage could be applied only against a truly small independent nation." (Iraq is a perfect example of the rottenness of the U.N. Charter).

"At the price of its independence, one of these nations could free itself from coercive authority of the charter, by the simple expedient of making a deal with a veto nation..." 

Sen. Hiram W. Johnson, one of the few, apart from Sen. Walsh, who saw through the U.N. Charter, stated as follows:

"In some respects, it is a pretty weak reed. It does nothing to stop a war instigated by any of the big five powers; gives each nation complete freedom to make war. Our only hope, therefore, to maintain world peace is that none of the big five nations will choose to make war..." 

That the American people have no protection, and no recourse against the war-making potential of the United Nations, was confirmed by the Gulf War when President Bush ran amok, trampling the provisions of the Constitution underfoot. Had President Bush followed the proper procedures and attempted to obtain a declaration of war, the Gulf War would never have happened, because he would have been turned down. Millions of Iraqis and more than 300 U.S. servicemen and women (at 1993) would not have needlessly lost their lives.

The president is not the Commander-In-Chief of our armed services until a legal declaration of war has been issued by Congress and the nation is officially at war. If the president were the Commander-In-Chief at all times, the office would have the same powers as a King — expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Prior to the Gulf War, CNN accepted the false premise that Bush, as Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces, had the right on his own to commit the military to war. This dangerous interpretation was quickly taken up by the media, and today is accepted as a fact when it is not

A gross deception practiced upon the American people is that the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed services at all times. Senate and House members are so poorly informed on the Constitution that they allowed President George Bush to get away with sending almost 500,000 troops to the Gulf to fight a war for British Petroleum and to satisfy a personal hatred toward Saddam Hussein. Bush lost the fiduciary relationship he was supposed to enjoy with the American people right there.

President Bill Clinton lately used this "Commander-In-Chief" misconception to try and oblige the military to accept homosexuals in the services, which he does not have the power to do. It is less a question of morals than it is of the President overstepping his authority.

The tragic truth about American servicemen being deployed to fight — as they were by the United Nations in the Korean and Gulf Wars — is that those who died in these wars did not die for their country, as dying for our country under our flag, constitutes an act of sovereignty, which was totally absent in the Korean and Gulf Wars. Since neither the Security Council nor any council of the United Nations has any sovereignty, the U.N. flag is meaningless in every sense.

Not a single U.N. Security Council resolution, affecting either directly or indirectly the United States, has any validity, as such resolutions are made by a body which itself has no sovereignty. The U.S. Constitution is above any so-called world body, and that, particularly, includes the United Nations, the U.S. Constitution is above and superior to any agreement or treaty made with any nation or group of nations, whether connected with the United Nations or not. But the United Nations de facto and de jure gives the president of the United States unlimited dictatorial powers not granted by the Constitution.

What President Bush did in the Gulf War bypassed the Constitution by issuing a proclamation (an executive order) directly on behalf of the U.N. Security Council. The House and Senate, meanwhile, failed in their constitutional duty to stop the illegal issuance of such an order. They could have done this by refusing to fund the war. Neither the House nor Senate had the right, nor do they have it now, to fund an agreement (or a treaty) with a world body that sets itself up above the U.S. Constitution, especially where that world body has no sovereignty, and more especially, where that body threatens the security of the United States.

Public Law 85766, Section 1602 states:

"...No part of the funds appropriated in this or in any other Act shall be used to pay...any person, firm or corporation, or any combination of persons, firms or corporations to conduct a study or plan when or how or in what circumstances the Government of the United States should surrender this country and its people to any foreign power" 

Public Law 471, Section 109 further states:

"It is illegal to use funds for any project that promotes One World Government or One World citizenship." 

So how has the United Nations addressed this foundation of law? The Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars also violated the U.S. Constitution because they violated Article 1, Section 8, clause 11: "Congress shall have the power to declare war." It does not say that the State Department the President or the U.N. has this right.

The United Nations would have us commit our country to waging war in foreign territories, but Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 says that no provision shall be made whereby the United States, as a nation, can commit itself to waging wars in foreign countries.

Moreover, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, permits tax revenues to be spent only for the following purposes:

(1)"...to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States." 

It says nothing about paying dues (tribute) to the United Nations or any other world body, and no powers are granted to allow this. In addition, there is the prohibition contained in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, which says:

(2)"No state shall, without the consent of Congress...keep troops or ships of war in time of peace...or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger." 

Since there has been no valid Constitutional declaration of war by Congress since the Second World War, the United States is at peace, and therefore, our troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the Persian Gulf region, Botswana and Somalia are there in breach of the Constitution, and should not be funded, but brought back home forthwith.

The burning question for the United States should be:

"How could the U.N. authorize the use of force against Iraq (i.e.: declare war), when it has no sovereignty, and why did our representatives go with such a travesty and violation of our Constitution? Why have our Representatives gone along with such gross violations of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold?" 

Moreover, the U.N. does not have sovereignty.

What constitutes sovereignty? It is based upon adequate territory, a constitutional form of money, a substantial population, in clearly demarcated borders which are definitely measurable. The United Nations is totally lacking in these requirements, and no matter what our politicians might say, the U.N. can never qualify as a sovereign body in terms of the U.S. Constitution's definition of sovereignty.

Therefore, it follows that we can never have a treaty with the U.N. Not now, not ever. The answer could be that, either out of sheer ignorance of the Constitution, or else, as servants of the Committee of 300, the senators, in 1945, went along with the U.N. Charter in breach of their oath of office to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The United Nations is a shiftless, rootless leech, a parasite feeding off its U.S. host. If there are any U.N. troops in this country, they should be ordered out forthwith, as their presence in our land is a defilement of our Constitution, and should not, indeed, cannot be tolerated by those who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. The United Nations is an ongoing extension of the Fabian-Socialist platform established in 1920, of which, every plank has now been carried out exactly in accordance with the Fabian-Socialist blueprint for America. The United Nations presence in Cambodia, its inaction in Bosnia-Herzegovina needs no amplification.

Some legislators saw through the U.N. agreement One such wide-awake legislator was Rep. Jessie Sumner, of Illinois:

"Mr. Chairman, of course you know that our government peace program is no peace. The movement is led by the same old warmongers, still masquerading as the princes of peace, who involved us in war while pretending their purpose was to keep us out of war (a very apt description of diplomacy by deception). Like Lend-Lease and other bills which involved us in war, while promising to keep us out of war, this measure (the U.N. Treaty) will involve us in every war hereafter." 

Rep. Sumner was joined by another informed legislator, Rep. Lawrence H. Smith:

"To vote for this proposal is to give approval to world communism. Why else would it have the full support of all shades of communism elsewhere? This (U.N.) measure strikes at the very heart of the Constitution. It provides that the power to declare war shall be taken from Congress and given to the President Here is the essence of dictatorship and dictatorial control all else must inevitably tend to follow." 

Smith further stated:

"The President is given absolute powers (which the U.S. Constitution does not give), to, at any time he elects, and upon any pretext whatsoever, snatch our sons and daughters away from their homes to fight and die in battle, not only for as long as he pleases, but as may suit the majority members of the international organization. Bear in mind, the United States will be in the minority so that the policies relating to the length of time our soldiers will be kept in foreign lands in any future wars, will rest more with foreign nations than our own..." 

Smith's fears proved to be well-grounded, because this is precisely what President Bush did when he snatched our sons and daughters away from their homes and sent them to fight in the Gulf War under color of the United Nations, a world body that has no sovereignty. The difference between a treaty (which the documents passed by the Senate in 1945 purported to be) and an agreement, is that a treaty requires sovereignty, whereas an agreement does not require sovereignty.

In 1945, the U.S. Senate debated for only three days — if one can call that debating the issue of treaties. As we all know, treaties have a history of thousands of years, and the Senate could not, and indeed did not, examine the U.N. Charter to the full extent of the resources which were available to it The U.S. State Department sent its most devious characters to lie and confuse the senators. A good example of this was the testimony of the late John Foster Dulles, one of the top 13 American Illuminati, a Committee of 300 member and a One World Government proponent down to his fingertips.

Dulles and his crew, hand-picked by the Committee of 300, were instructed to subvert the Senate, and utterly confuse them, the bulk of whom knew little about the Constitution, as Congressional Record testimony proves rather clearly. Dulles talked a crooked streak, lying blatantly and dissembling when he thought he might be caught in a lie. An altogether treasonous, treacherous performance.

Dulles had the support of Sen. W. Lucas, the banker's agent planted in the Senate. Here is what Sen. Lucas had to say on behalf of his masters, the Wall Street bankers:

"...I feel very strongly about it (the U.N. Charter), because now is the time for senators to determine what the charter means. We should not wait for a year, or a year and a half, when conditions will be different (from immediate post-wartime). I do not want to see any senator withdraw judgment until a year and a half from now..." 

Obviously, this tacit admission by Sen. Lucas implied that for the Senate to examine the U.N. Charter properly, it would have taken at least eighteen months to accomplish. It was also an admission that if the documents were studied, the treaty would be rejected.

Why the unseemly haste? Had common sense prevailed, had the senators done their homework, they would have seen that it would have taken at least a year and probably two years, to properly study and vote on the charter before them. Had the senators in 1945 done so, thousands of servicemen would still be alive today instead of having sacrificed their lives for the unsovereign body of the United Nations.

As shocking as the truth sounds, the stark fact is that the Korean War was an unconstitutional war on behalf of an unsovereign body. Our brave soldiers did not, therefore, die for their country. Likewise in the Gulf War. There will be many more "Korean Wars"; the Gulf War and Somalia being the repercussions of the failure of the U.S. Senate to

In his landmark work on constitutional law, Judge Thomas M. Cooley wrote:

"The Constitution in itself never yields to treaty or enactment. It neither changes with time or does it, in theory, bend to the force of circumstance... The Congress derives its powers to legislate from the Constitution, which is the measure of its authority. And any enactment of the Congress which is opposed to its provisions, or is not within the grant of powers made by it, is unconstitutional, therefore no law, and obligatory upon no one. The Constitution imposes no restriction on power, but it is subject to implied restrictions that nothing can be done under it which changes the Constitution of the country, nor rob a department of government or any of the States of its constitutional authority—Congress and the Senate in a treaty, cannot give substance to a treaty greater than itself, or delegated power of the Senate and House." 

Professor Hermann von Hoist, in his monumental work, "Constitutional Law of the United States" wrote:

"As to the extent of a treaty power, the Constitution says nothing (i.e. it is reserved-prohibited), but it evidently cannot be unlimited. The power exists only under the Constitution, and every treaty inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution, is therefore inadmissible and, according to the Constitution law, ipso facto null and void." 

The United Nations treaty violates at least a dozen provisions of the Constitution, and since a "treaty" cannot override the Constitution, each and every one of its Security Council resolutions, are null and void in so far as they affect the United States. This includes our alleged membership in this parasitical organization. The United States has never been a member of the United Nations, is not now, and can never be, save and except where we, the people agree to have the Constitution amended by the Senate and ratified by all of the States, to permit membership in the United Nations.

There are a great number of cases where case law backs up this contention. Since they cannot all be included here, I'll mention the three cases where this principle was established; Cherokee Tobacco vs. the United States, Whitney vs. Robertson and Godfrey vs. Riggs (133 U.S., 256.)

To sum up our position regarding U.N. membership; We, the sovereign people of the United States, are not obligated to obey any U.N. resolutions, because enactment of the United Nations Charter by the Senate, which purported to make the Constitution yield to United Nations law, conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution, and is, therefore, ipso facto, null and void.

In 1945, the senators were suborned into believing that a treaty has powers that surpass the Constitution. Clearly, the senators had not read what Thomas Jefferson had to say:

"To hold the treaty-making power as boundless is to make the Constitution blank paper by construction." 

If the senators in 1945 had bothered to read the wealth of information contained in the Congressional Record as it pertains to treaty-making and agreements, they would not have acted in ignorance by endorsing the United Nations Charter.

The United Nations is in fact a One World Government body put together with the objective of overriding the U.S. Constitution clearly the intent of its original framers, Fabianists Sydney and Beatrice Webb, Dr. Leo Posvolsky and Leonard Woolf. A good source of confirmation of the foregoing can be found in "Fabian Freeway, High Road to Socialism in the U.S." by Rose Martin.

The foundation of the socialist plot to subvert the United States can be found in such papers as the "New Statesman" and the "New Republic." Both were published circa 1915, and copies were in the British Museum in London, when I was studying there. In 1916, Brentanos of New York, published the same documents under the title: "International Government," accompanied by fulsome praise from socialists of every stripe in the U.S.

Was the United Nations Charter actually written by traitor Alger Hiss, Molotov and Posvolsky? Evidence to the contrary abounds, but basically what happened is that the RIIA took the Beatrice Webb Fabian Socialist document and sent it to President Wilson to get its provisions drafted into U.S. law. The document was not read by President Wilson, but handed to Col. House for immediate action,

Wilson, and indeed all Presidents after him, always acted with alacrity when addressed by our British masters in Chatham House. Col. House retired to his summer home, "Magnolia" in Massachusetts on July 13-14,1918, aided and abetted by professor David H. Miller of the Harvard Enquiry Group, to work up the British proposals for a One World Government body.

House returned to Washington with a 23 article proposal, which the British Foreign Office accepted as forming the basis of the League of Nations. This was nothing but an attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution. The "House" draft was forwarded to the British government for its approval and thereafter reduced to 14 articles.

Thus was born Wilson's "14 Points," actually not Wilson's, but rather those of the British government, helped by socialist Walter Lippman which then became the basis of a document presented to the Paris Peace Conference. (When dealing with subversive secret societies it should be noted that the word "peace" is used strictly in a communist socialist sense.)

Had the senators done their homework in 1945 they would have discovered in short order that the United Nations Treaty was nothing but a warmed-over version of the socialist document dreamed up by British Fabianists and supported by their American cousins. This would have sounded the alarm bells. Had the senators discovered who the League of Nations treasonous drafters really were, they would surely have rejected the document without hesitation.

It is clear that the senators did not know what they were looking at, judging from the remarks made by Sen. Harold A. Burton:

"We again have the chance to retrieve and establish, not a League of Nations, but the present United Nations Charter, although 80 percent of its provisions (in the U.N. Charter) are, in substance, the same as those of the League of Nations in 1919..." 

If the senators had read the Congressional Record about the League of Nations, particularly pages 8175-8191, they would have found confirmation of Sen. Burton's claim that the U.N. Charter was nothing but a refurbished League of Nations Charter. Their suspicions ought to have been aroused about the League transferring its assets to the proposed United Nations.

They would also have noticed that the task of reshaping the modern version of the League was carried out by a group of dissolute people with no interest in the well-being of the United States: Alger Hiss, whose mentor was the wrecker of the Constitution, Felix Frankfurter, Leo Posvolsky, and behind them, the international bankers personified by the Rothschilds, Warburgs and Rockefellers.

Former Congressman John Rarick put it very well, calling the United Nations "A creature of Invisible Government". Had the senators even glimpsed into the history of the refurbished League of Nations, they would have found that it was resuscitated in Chatham House, and in 1941, was sent with RIIA instructions to Cordell Hull, Secretary of State (chosen by the Council on Foreign Relations, as every Secretary of State has been since 1919), and ordered that it be activated.

The timing was perfect, 14 days after Pearl Harbor, when our British masters deemed it would not receive much public attention, and in any case, what with the horror of Pearl Harbor, public opinion would be favorable. So, on December 22,1941, at the behest of the Committee of 300's international bankers, Cordell Hull was instructed to brief President Roosevelt on his role in bringing up the "new and improved" version of the League of Nations.

The sister-child of the RIIA, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) recommended that Roosevelt give orders for a Presidential Advisory Committee on Post War Foreign Policy to be set up forthwith.

Here is how the CFR recommended the action to be taken:

"That the Charter of the United Nations become the Supreme Law of the land, and that Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution of any state to the contrary not-withstanding." 

What the senators would have found in 1945, had they bothered to look, was that the CFR directive was tantamount to TREASON, which they could not have condoned and still not violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. They would have discovered that in 1905, a group of international bankers believed they could subvert the Constitution by using a world body as their vehicle, and that the CFR directive was merely a part of that ongoing process.

A treaty cannot be legally higher than the Constitution, yet the United Nations treaty did take precedence over the Constitution. The Constitution, or any part of it, cannot simply be repealed by Congress, but a treaty can be overturned or scrapped altogether.

The Constitution says that a treaty is only a law that can be repealed by Congress in two ways:

(1) Pass a law that will repeal the treaty.

(2) Cut off funding for the treaty. 

In order to avoid such abuses of power, we, the sovereign people, must demand that our government cut off funding for the United Nations, which is most commonly expressed as "membership dues."

Congress must pass enabling legislation to fund all United States obligations, but it is clearly illegal for the Congress to pass enabling funding for an illegal purpose, such as our alleged membership of the United Nations, which has set itself above the Constitution. If the senators in 1945 had done the proper research, and if they had not allowed Dulles to bamboozle, lie, dissemble, deceive and mislead them, they would have found the following exchange between Sen. Henry M. Teller and Sen. James B. Allen and benefited from it.

Here is a telling exchange made by two Senators:

Sen. Teller: "There can be no treaty that will bind the government of."

Sen. Allen: "Very well. That in its very nature, is altogether domestic, and cannot be the subject of a treaty."

Sen. Teller: "It is not because it is domestic; it is because the Constitution has put that business in the hands of Congress exclusively." 

Sen. Allen: "No, Mr. President, not necessarily so, because the raising of revenue is purely a domestic matter. It lies at the foundation of the life of the nation, and it must be exercised by government alone, without the consent or participation of a foreign power (or world body)..." 

A treaty is not the supreme law of the land. It is only a law, and not even a secure law at that. Any treaty that places the Constitution in jeopardy is ipso facto immediately null and void. Also, a treaty can be broken.

This is well established by Vattel's "Law of Nations," on page 194:

"In the year 1506, the states-general of the kingdom of France assembled at Tores engaged Louis XII to break a treaty he had concluded with the Emperor Maximilian and Archduke Philip, his son, because the treaty was pernicious to the kingdom. They also decided that neither the treaty nor the oath that accompanied it, could be binding on the kingdom who had no right to alienate the property of the crown...." 

Certainly the United Nations treaty is destructive to the national security and the well-being of the United States. Inasmuch as a constitutional amendment, which is required for the United States to be a member of the United Nations, was not passed nor accepted by the 50 states, we are not a member of the United Nations. Such an amendment would have subjugated the right of Congress to declare war, and would have put the declaration of war in the hands of the United Nations on a superior level to that of the Constitution, placing American servicemen under the control and command of the United Nations.

Additionally, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to include a declaration of war by the United Nations and the United States on the same document, or to even be associated with it either directly, or by implication. On this one count alone, the United Nations threatens the security of the Constitution and therefore on that count alone, our membership of the United Nations is very definitely null and void and must not be allowed to stand. Sen. Langer, one of two senators who voted against the U.N. Charter, warned his colleagues in July of 1945 that the treaty was fraught with peril for America.

The late U.S. Representative, Larry McDonald, fully exposed the massive sedition and treason of the U.N. treaty as found in the Congressional Record, Extension of Remarks, January 27,1982, under the title, "Get Us Out":

"The United Nations, for three and a half decades, has been indulging in a gigantic unfettered conspiracy, mostly at the U.S. taxpayers expense, to enslave our republic in a world government dominated by the Soviet Union and its Third World. Having had enough of this freewheeling conspiracy, more and more responsible officials and thinking citizens are ready to pull out..." 

McDonald was right on target, but over the last two years, we have seen a marked change in the way the United Nations is run by principally Britain and the United States, and we shall come to that in due course. Under President Bush, there was an obvious desire to remain in the United Nations, as it suited his style of politics as well as his kingly aspirations.

In 1945, sick of war, the senators thought that the United Nations would be a means of ending wars. Little did they know that the United Nation's purpose was just the opposite. It is now known that only five senators actually read the charter scripted by Alger Hiss, before voting on the treaty.

The goal of the United Nations, or rather, the goal of the men behind the United Nations, is not peace, even in the Communist sense of the word, but is actually world revolution, the overthrow of good government and good order and the destruction of established religion. Socialism and communism are not in themselves necessarily the goal; they are only the means to an end. The economic chaos now being perpetrated against the United States is a much more powerful means to that end.

World revolution, of which the United Nations is an integral component, is another matter entirely; a complete overturning of moral and spiritual values enjoyed by the Western nations for centuries is its goal. As part of that goal, Christian leadership must perforce, be destroyed, and that has already largely been accomplished by placing false leaders in places where they exert tremendous influence. Billy Graham and Robert S. Schuler are two good examples of so-called Christian leaders who are not. Much of this program of revolution was confirmed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his book, "Our Way."

If one reads between the lines of the treasonous, seditious U.N. Charter, one will find that much of the objectives outlined in the preceding paragraphs are implied, and, even in some instances, are even spelled out in the pernicious "treaty," which, if we, the people do not reverse, will trample our Constitution underfoot and make of us slaves in a dictatorship of the most savage and repressive kind under a One World Government.

Summed up, the goals of the spiritual and moral world revolution now raging — and nowhere more so than in the United States — are:

1. The destruction of Western civilization. 

2. Dissolution of legal government 

3. Destruction of nationalism, and with it, the ideal of patriotism. 

4. Bringing the people of the United States into penury via graduated income taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, sales taxes and so on, ad nauseam. 

5. The abolition of the God-given right to private property by taxing property out of existence and targeting inheritance with bigger and bigger taxes. (President Clinton has already taken a giant step down this road.) 

6. Destruction of the family unit via "free love", abortion, lesbianism and homosexuality. (Here again, President Clinton has placed himself firmly behind these revolutionary goals, thereby destroying any lingering doubts about where he stands in relation to the forces of world revolution.) 

The Committee of 300 employs a vast number of specialists in diplomacy by deception who make us believe that severely dangerous and often disruptive changes come about through "changing times," as though their direction could change without some force compelling such changes. The Committee has a vast number of "teachers" and "leaders," whose sole task in life is to dupe as many people as possible into believing that major changes "just happen" and so, of course, should just be accepted.

Toward this end, these "leaders" who are in the vanguard of carrying out the Communist Manifesto's "social programs," have cleverly employed the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations methods like "inner directional conditioning" and "Operation Research" to make us accept the changes as if they were our own ideas to begin with.

A critical examination of the U.N. Charter shows that it differs only very slightly from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, an unabridged, unaltered copy of which is kept in the British Museum in London. There is an extract of the manifesto, allegedly the work of Karl Marx (Mordechai Levy) and Friedrich Engels, but was actually written by members of the Illuminati, which is still very active today through their top 13 council members in the United States.

In 1945 absolutely none of this vital information was ever viewed by the senators, who fell all over themselves in their rush to sign the dangerous document. If our lawmakers knew the Constitution, if our Supreme Court would uphold it then we would be able to echo the words of the late Sen. Sam Ervin, a great constitutional scholar, so much admired by liberals because of his work on Watergate:

"There is no way under the noon-day sun we ever joined the United Nations" and force our legislators to recognize the fact that the U.S. Constitution stands supreme over any treaty. 

The United Nations is a war-making body. It strives to place power in the hands of the executive branch instead of where it belongs: in the legislative branch. Take the examples of the Korean War and the Gulf War. In the latter, the United Nations, not the Senate and the House, gave President Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq, thereby enabling him to use diplomacy by deception as a means to bypass the mandated Constitutional declaration of war. President Harry Truman evoked the same unauthorized power for the Korean War.

If we, the sovereign people, continue to go on believing that the United States is legally a member of the United Nations, then we must be prepared for more illegal actions by our Presidents, such as we saw in the invasion of Panama and the Gulf War. By acting under color of Security Council resolutions, the president of the United States can take on the powers of a king or a dictator. Those powers are expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

Under the powers vested in the president by U.N. Security Council resolutions, the president will be able to drag us into any future wars he decides we must fight. The groundwork for this method of sabotaging the declaration of war procedures mandated by the Constitution was tested and carried out in the days before the Gulf War, which will no doubt, forever be used as a precedent for future undeclared wars, in furtherance of the strategy of diplomacy by deception. Wars make far reaching changes which are unable to be achieved by diplomacy.

So that we are perfectly clear about the procedures laid down by the Constitution, which must be complied with BEFORE the United States can be engaged in war, let us examine them:

1. Both the Senate and the House must pass separate resolutions declaring that a state of belligerency exists between the United States and the other nation. In this connection we need to study the word "belligerent," for without "belligerency" there can be no intent to go to war

2. The House and Senate then must separately and individually pass resolutions declaring that a state of war exists between the belligerent nation or nations and the United States. This officially places America on notice that it is about to go to war.

3. The House and Senate then must pass individual and separate resolutions advising the military that the United States is now at war with the belligerent nation or nations.

4. The House and Senate must then decide if the war is to be an "imperfect" or a "perfect" war. An imperfect war means that only a single branch of the military can become involved, while a perfect war means that every man, women and child in the United States is in a public war with every man, women and child of the other nation or nations. In the latter case, all branches of the armed services are engaged.

If the president does not get a constitutional declaration of war from Congress, any and all U.S. military personnel dispatched to fight the undeclared war must return to the United States within 60 days from the date they were dispatched (this vital provision has mostly become null and void).

It is easy to see how the Constitution was steamrollered by President Bush; our military are still at war with Iraq and are still being used to enforce an illegal U.N. blockade. If we had a government that actually upholds the Constitution, the Gulf War would never have been started, and our troops would not now be in the Middle East, or for that matter, in Somalia.

Such declaration of war measures were designed specifically to avoid the United States being casually thrust into a war, which is why President Bush did an end-run around the Constitution so that we could be railroaded into the Gulf War. Nor does the United Nations have the authority to impose a rule on the United States that tells us to obey an economic blockade of Iraq or any other nation — because the United Nations has no sovereignty. We shall deal with the Gulf War in the next chapters.

These powers, not given to the president but to the legislative branch of government de facto, make the United Nations the most powerful body in the world via Security Council resolutions. Since abandoning the Jefferson form of neutrality, we have been ruled by a series of vagabonds, one after another, who have plundered America at will and continue to do so. It was Thomas Jefferson who issued a stern warning, which our agents in Congress blithely disregarded, that America would be destroyed by secret deals with foreign governments having the desire to divide and rule the American people, so that the interests of foreign governments would be served before the needs of our own people.

Foreign aid, is nothing more that a program for robbing and plundering countries of their natural resources, and handing U.S. taxpayer's money to dictators in those countries, so that the Committee of 300 can reap obscene benefits from the illegal plunder, while the American people, no better than the slaves of the Egyptian Pharaohs, groan under the huge burden of "foreign aid." In the chapter on Assassinations we give the Belgian Congo as good example of what we mean. The Belgian Congo was run for the benefit of the Committee of 300, not the Congolese people.

The United Nations uses foreign aid as a means to plunder the resources of sovereign nations. No pirate or robber ever had it so good. Not even Kubla Kahn had it as good as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs and their kin have it. If a nation should demure in handing over its natural resources, as was the case with the Congo, which tried to protect its natural resources.

United Nations troops go in an "compel compliance", even if it means murdering civilians which U.N. troops did in the Congo ousting and murdering its leader, as was the case with Patrice Lumumba. The ongoing attempt to murder President Hussein of Iraq is yet another example of how the United Nations is subverting U.S. law and the laws of independent nations.

The question is, how long will we, the sovereign people, go on tolerating our illegal membership in this One World Government body? Only we, the sovereign people, can order our agents, our servants, in the House and Senate, to repeal forthwith our membership in a world body, which is injurious to the well-being of our United States of America.

Part 2 - The Brutal, Illegal Gulf War

The most recent of wars carried out under the cloak of diplomacy by deception, the Gulf War, differs from others in that the Committee of 300, the Council on Foreign Relations, Illuminati and Bilderbergers did not adequately cover their tracks along the way to war. The Gulf War therefore is one of the easiest of wars to trace back to Chatham House and Harold Pratt House, and, fortunately for us, it is one of the easiest to prove the diplomacy by deception thesis.

The Gulf War must be viewed as a single component of the Committee of 300's overall strategy for the Middle East oil-producing Islamic states. Only a brief historical overview can be given here. It is essential to know the truth and to be set free from the propaganda of Madison Avenue opinion-makers, also known as "advertising agencies."

British imperialists, aided by their American cousins, began to implement their plans to seize control of all Middle East oil in or around the mid-1800s. The illegal Gulf War was an integral provision of that plan. I say illegal, because, as explained in the chapters dealing with the United Nations, only the Congress can declare war, as laid down in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 of the U.S. Constitution. Henry Clay, a recognized authority on the Constitution, said this on a number of occasions.

No elected official can override the provisions of the Constitution, and both former Secretary of State James Baker III and President George Bush, ought to have been impeached for violating the Constitution. A British intelligence source told me that when Baker met Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace, he actually bragged about how he got around the Constitution, and then, in the presence of the queen, chastised Edward Heath who had opposed the war. Edward Heath, a former British prime minister was sacked by the Committee of 300 for failing to support the European unity policy and for his strong opposition to the Gulf War.

Baker remarked to the gathering of heads-of-state and diplomats that he dismissed attempts to draw him into discussing constitutional issues. Baker also boasted about how his threats against the Iraqi nation were carried out, and Queen Elizabeth II nodded her approval. Obviously Baker and President Bush, who was also present at the gathering, placed their fealty to the One World Government above that of the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The land of Arabia existed for thousands of years, and it was always known as Arabia. The land was linked to events in Turkey, Persia (now Iran), and Iraq through the Wahabi and the Abdul Aziz families. In the 15th century, the British, under the direction of Black Guelph Venetian robber-bankers saw the possibilities of entrenching themselves in Arabia, where they were opposed by the Koreish tribe, the tribe of the prophet Muhammad, the posthumous son of the Hashemite, Abdullah, out of which came the Fatima and Abbasid Dynasties.

The Gulf War was only an extension of the Committee of 300's attempts to destroy Muhammad and the Hashemite people in Iraq. The rulers of Saudi Arabia are hated and despised by all true followers of Islam, more so since they allowed "infidels" (U.S. troops) to be stationed in the land of the prophet Muhammad.

The essential articles of the Muslim religion consist of a belief in one God, (Allah), in his angels and his prophet Muhammad, the last of the prophets and belief in his revealed work, the Koran; belief in the Day of Resurrection and God's predestination of men. The six fundamental duties of believers are recitation of the profession of faith, attesting to the unity of God, and the firm acceptance of the mission of Muhammad; five daily prayers; total fasting during the month of Ramadan, and a pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once in the lifetime of the believer.

Strict observation of the fundamental principles of the Muslim religion make one a fundamentalist, which the Wahabi and Abdul Aziz families (the Saudi Royal family), are not The Saudi Royal Family has slowly but surely drifted away from fundamentalism, which has not endeared them to Islamic fundamentalist countries like Iraq and Iran, who now blame them for making the Gulf War possible in the first place. Skipping over centuries of history, we come to 1463, when a great war, instigated and planned by the Black Guelph Venetian bankers, broke out in the Ottoman Empire. The Venetian Guelphs (who are directly related to Queen Elizabeth II of England) had deceived the Turks into believing that they were friends and allies, but the Ottomans were to learn a bitter lesson.

To understand the period, we must understand that the British Black Nobility is synonymous with the Venetian Black Nobility. Under the leadership of Mohammed the Conqueror, the Venetians were driven out of what is today Turkey. The role of Venice in world history has been deliberately and grossly understated. And its influence is today understated, such as the role it played in the Bolshevik Revolution, both world wars and the Gulf War. The Ottomans were betrayed by the British and Venetians, who "came as friends but held a concealed dagger behind their backs" as history records. This was one of the earlier sallies into diplomacy by deception. It was very successfully copied by George Bush in posing as a friend of the Arab people.

With British intervention, the Turks were pushed back from the gates of Venice and an Arab presence firmly established in the peninsula. The British misused the Arabs under Col. Thomas E. Lawrence to bring down the Ottoman Empire, eventually betraying them and setting up the Zionist state of Israel, through the Balfour Declaration. This is a good example of the diplomacy by deception that succeeded. In the period 1909 to 1915, the British government used Lawrence to lead Arab forces to fight the Turks and drive them out of Palestine. The void left by the Turks was filled by immigrant Jews flocking into Palestine under the terms of the Balfour Declaration.

The British government continued its deception by moving British troops into the Sinai and Palestine. Sir Archibald Murray assured Lawrence the move was to forestall Jewish immigration under the Balfour Declaration signed by Lord Rothschild, a top member of the Illuminati. The terms under which the Arabs agreed to intervene in the Ottoman campaign (to whom the Black Nobility of Britain had sworn undying loyalty), was negotiated by Sheriff Hussein of the Hijaz, and specifically included a provision that Britain would not permit Jewish immigration into Palestine, Transjordan and Arabia to continue. Hussein made this demand the very heart of the agreement signed with the British government

Of course, the British government never intended to honor the terms of its agreement with Hussein, adding the names of the other countries to Palestine so that they could say, "well, we did keep them out of these countries." It was diplomacy by deception at its finest, because the Zionists had no interest in sending Jews to any Middle East country other than Palestine.

The British government always played the Abdul-Aziz and Wahabis (the Saudi Royal Family) against Sheriff Hussein, secretly entering into an agreement with the two families that "officially" pretended to recognize Hussein as the King of Hijaz (which the British government did on Dec. 15,1916). The British government agreed to secretly back the two families with enough arms and money to conquer the independent city-states of Arabia.

Of course, Hussein was not privy to the side deal, and he agreed to launch a full-scale attack on the Turks. This prompted the Wahabi and Abdul Aziz families to put together an army and launch a war to bring Arabia under their control. The British oil companies thus succeeded in getting Hussein to battle the Turks unwittingly on their behalf.

Funded by Britain in 1913 and 1927, the Abdul Aziz-Wahabi armies conducted a bloody campaign against Arabia's independent city states overrunning Hijaz, Jauf and Taif. The holy Hashemite city of Mecca was attacked on Oct 13,1924, forcing Hussein and his son, Ali, to flee. On Dec. 5, 1925, Medina surrendered after a particularly bloody battle. The British government, demonstrating once again its grasp of diplomacy by deception, did not tell the Wahabis and Saudis that its true goal was the destruction of the sanctity of Mecca and the overall weakening of the Muslim religion, which was deeply resented by the British oligarchists and their Black Nobility Venetian cousins.

Nor did the British government tell the Saudi and Wahabi families that they were merely pawns in the game to secure Arabian oil for Britain over the claims of Italy, France, Russia, Turkey and Germany. On Sept 22,1932, the Saudi-Wahabi armies put down a rebellion in the largely Hashemite territory of Transjordan. Thereafter, Arabia was renamed Saudi Arabia and was henceforth to be ruled by a king drawn from the two families. Thus, by the deceit of diplomacy by deception, the British oil companies gained control of Arabia.

This diplomacy by deception and the whole bloody campaign is fully described in my monograph, "Who are the Real Saudi Kings and Kuwaiti Sheiks?"

Once freed from the Ottoman threat and Arab nationalism under Sheriff Hussein to pursue its designs even further, the British government, acting on behalf of its oil companies, entered into a new period of diplomacy by deception. They drew up and guaranteed a treaty between Saudi Arabia, as it was now called, and Iraq, which became the foundation of a whole series of inter-Arab-Muslim pacts, which the British government said it would enforce against Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Contrary to what Britain's leaders told the Arab-Muslim parties, the Balfour Declaration which had already been negotiated, permitted Jews not only to immigrate to Palestine, but to make it a homeland. This agreement, laid out terms of an Anglo-French accord, placed Palestine under international administration. This is just as easily done by today's United Nations, with Cyrus Vance carving up Bosnia Herzegovina, an internationally-recognized country, into small en claves so that Serbia can take them over in due time.

Then, on Nov. 2,1917, came the public announcement of the Balfour Declaration, which said that the British government — not the Arabs or the Palestinians, whose land it was— favored establishing Palestine as a national homeland for the Jewish people. Britain vowed to use its best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of that goal,

"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." 

A more audacious piece of diplomacy by deception is hard to find anywhere. Note that the real inhabitants of Palestine were downgraded to "non-Jewish communities." Also note that the declaration, which was in reality a proclamation, was signed by Lord Rothschild, head of British Zionists, who was not a member of the British Royal Family, nor was he a member of Balfour's cabinet and therefore had even less standing than Balfour to sign such a document

The gross betrayal of the Arabs so angered Col. Lawrence that he threatened to expose the British government's duplicity, a threat that was to cost him his life. Lawrence had given Hussein and his men a solemn promise that further Jewish immigration into Palestine would not occur. Documents in the British Museum clearly show that the promise relayed to Sheriff Hussein by Lawrence, was made by Sir Archibald Murray and General Edmund Allenby on behalf of the British government

In 1917, British troops marched into Baghdad, marking the beginning of the end of the Ottoman empire. Throughout this period, the Wahabi and Saudi families were continually reassured by Murray that no Jews would be allowed to enter Arabia, and that the few Jews who would be allowed to immigrate would be settled only in Palestine. On Jan. 10, 1919, the British gave themselves a "mandate" to rule Iraq, which passed into law on May 5,1920. Not a single government in the world protested Britain's illegal action. Sir Percy Cox was named high commissioner. Of course, the people of Iraq were not consulted at all.

By 1922, the League of Nations had approved the terms of the Balfour (Rothschild) Declaration, which gave the British government a man date to run Palestine and the Hashemite country called Transjordan. One can only marvel at the audacity of the British government and the League of Nations.

In 1880, the British government formed a friendship with a tame Arab sheik by the name of Emir Abdullah al Salem Al Sabah. Al Sabah was made their representative in the area along the southern border of Iraq where the Rumalia oilfields had been discovered inside Iraqi territory. The Al Sabah family kept an eye on this rich prize while the

British went after another prize in 1899, that of the huge gold deposits in the tiny Boer Republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State, which we shall come to in succeeding chapters. It is mentioned here to illustrate the Committee of 300's quest to grab natural resources of nations whenever and wherever they could do so.

On behalf of the Committee of 300, on Nov. 25,1899 — the same year the British went to war against the Boer Republics — the British government made a deal with Emir Al Sabah, whereby the land encroaching on the Rumalia oilfields in Iraq was ceded to the British government notwithstanding the fact that the land was an integral part of Iraq, or that the Emir AI Sabah had no right to it.

The deal was signed by Sheik Mubarak Al Sabah, who traveled to London in style with his retinue, with all expenses paid by the British taxpayers and not the British oil companies who were the beneficiaries of the deal. Kuwait became a de facto undeclared British protectorate. The local population had no say in the setting up of the Al Sabahs as absolute dictators who soon showed cruel ruthlessness.

In 1915, the British invaded Iraq and occupied Baghdad in an act President George Bush would have called "naked aggression," the term he used to describe Iraq's move against Kuwait to reclaim its land stolen by Britain. The British government set up a self-proclaimed "mandate" as we have already seen, and on Aug. 23,1921, two months after his arrival in Baghdad, self-styled high commissioner Cox, named former King Faisal of Syria as head of a puppet regime in Basra. Britain now had one puppet in northern Iraq and another in southern Iraq.

In order to strengthen their position, not being satisfied with the blatantly rigged plebiscite that gave the British their mandate, an elaborate and bloody plot was hatched. MI6 British intelligence agents were sent in to stir up a revolt among the Kurds in the Mosul. Encouraged to revolt by their leader, Sheik Mahmud, they staged a great insurrection on Jun. 18,1922. British intelligence agents of MI6 had for months told Sheik Mahmud that his chances of securing an autonomous state for the Kurds would never be better.

Why did MI6 ostensibly act against the best interests of the British government?

The answer is found in diplomacy by deception. Yet, even as the Kurds were being told that their age-old quest for an autonomous state was about to become a reality, Cox was telling Iraqi leaders in Baghdad that the Kurds were about to revolt It was, said Cox, only one of many reasons why the Iraqis needed a continued British presence in the country. After two years of fighting, the Kurds were defeated and their leaders executed.

In 1923, however, Britain was forced by Italy, France and Russia to recognize a protocol that granted independence to Iraq once Iraq joined the League of Nations, or, in any case, not later than 1926. This angered the Royal Dutch Shell Co. and British Petroleum, who both called for renewed action, afraid they would lose their oil concessions which were to expire in 1996. Another severe blow to British imperialists and their oil companies was the League of Nations award of the oil-rich Mosul to Iraq.

MI6 arranged for another Kurdish revolt to take place February through April of 1925. False promises were made to the Iraq government, with accounts of what would happen if the British withdrew protection from Iraq. The Kurds were misled into insurrection. The object was to show the League of Nations that its award of Mosul to Iraq was a mistake that it was bad for the world to have an "unstable" government in charge of a major oil reserve. The other benefit was that the Kurds would probably lose, and would once again have their leaders executed. This time, however, the plot didn't work; the League remained steadfast in its decision on Mosul. But the rebellion again ended in defeat for the Kurds and the execution of their leaders.

The Kurds never realized that their enemy was not Iraq, but British and American oil interests. It was Winston Churchill, not the Iraqis, who in 1929 ordered the Royal Air Force to bomb Kurdish villages, because the Kurds objected to British oil interests over the Mosul oilfields which they fully understood the value of.

April, May and June of 1932 saw the Kurds in yet another M16 inspired and directed insurrection, again aimed at persuading the League to alter its decision over Mosul oil, but the attempt was not successful, and on Oct. 3, 1932, Iraq became an independent nation with full control over Mosul. The British oil companies hung on for another 12 years, until finally, in 1948 they were forced to leave Iraq.

And even after leaving Iraq, the British did not withdraw their presence from Kuwait on the spurious grounds that it was not part of Iraq, but a separate country. After the murder of President Kassem, the Iraqi government feared another uprising by the Kurds, who were still under the control of British intelligence. On June 10,1963, the Kurds under Mustafa al-Barzani threatened war against Baghdad, which had its hands full with crushing the Communist menace. The Iraqi government made an agreement granting some measure of autonomy to the Kurds, and issued a proclamation to this effect

Stoked up by British intelligence, the Kurds resumed fighting in April of 1965, because no progress had been made by Iraq in implementing the provisions of the 1963 proclamation. The Baghdad government charged Britain with meddling in its internal affairs, and Kurdish unrest continued for four more years. On Mar. 11, 1970, the Kurds were finally granted autonomy. But, as before, only a very few of the provisions contained in the agreement were implemented. The arrangement had been disturbed in 1923 when, at the insistence of Turkey, Germany and France, a conference was held at Lausanne, Switzerland, under the auspices of the League of Nations.

The real reason for the 1923 Lausanne Conference was the discovery of the Mosul oilfields in northern Iraq. Turkey suddenly decided it had a claim to the vast oilfield that lay beneath the land occupied by the Kurds. By now America was also interested, with John D. Rockefeller ordering President Warren Harding to send an observer. The American observer went along with the existing illegal situation in Kuwait. Rockefeller had no intention of rocking the British boat just as long as he could get his share of the new oil find.

Iraq lost its rights under the old Turkish Petroleum Company agreement, and the status of Kuwait remained unchanged. The question of Mosul oil was left deliberately vague at the insistence of the British delegate. These questions would be settled "by future negotiations" the British delegate stated. The blood of American servicemen will yet be spilled to secure Mosul oil for British and American oil companies, just as it was spilled over the oil in Kuwait

On June 25, 1961, Iraqi Premier Hassan Abdul Kassem fiercely attacked Britain over the Kuwait issue, pointing out that the promised negotiations agreed upon at the Lausanne Conference had not taken place. Kassem declared that the territory called Kuwait had been an integral part of Iraq and was so recognized for more 400 years by the Ottoman empire. Instead, the British granted Kuwait independence.

But it was clear that the British ploy of leaving the status of Kuwait and the Mosul oil fields to a later date was almost foiled by Kassem. Hence, the sudden need to grant independence to Kuwait, before the rest of the world discovered the British and American tactics. Kuwait could never be independent, because, as the British well knew, it was a piece of Iraq which had been sliced off at the Rumalia oilfields and given to British Petroleum.

Had Kassem succeeded in getting Kuwait back, the British rulers would have lost billions of dollars in oil revenues. But when Kassem vanished after Kuwait got its independence the movement to challenge Britain lost its momentum. By granting independence to Kuwait in 1961, and ignoring the fact that the land was not theirs to give, Britain was able to fend off the just claims of Iraq. As we know, Britain did the same thing in Palestine, India and later, in South Africa.

For the next 30 years, Kuwait continued as a vassal state of Great Britain, with the oil companies pulling billions of dollars into British banks while Iraq got nothing. British banks flourished in Kuwait, which were administered from Whitehall and the City of London. This continued until 1965, in addition to the cruelty of the Al Sabahs was the fact that there was no "one man one vote". In fact there was no vote at all for the people. This was not the concern of the British and United States government

The British government made this deal with the Al Sabah family, who would henceforth remain the rulers of Kuwait (as that portion of Iraqi territory came to be known), under the full protection of the British government. Thus was Kuwait stolen from Iraq. The fact that Kuwait did not apply for membership in the U.N. at the time Saudi Arabia did, is proof that it was never a country in the truest sense of the word.

The creation of Kuwait was hotly disputed by successive Iraqi governments, who could do little to reclaim the land in the face of superior British military might. On July 1, 1961, after years of protest over Kuwait annexing its territory, the Iraqi government finally moved on the issue. Emir Al Sabah called on Britain to honor the 1899 agreement, and the British government moved military forces into Kuwait. Baghdad backed down, but never gave up its just claim to the territory.

Britain's seizure of the Iraqi land, calling it Kuwait and granting it independence, must rank as one of the most audacious acts of piracy in modern times, and directly contributed to the Gulf War. I have gone to some lengths to explain the background of events that led to the Gulf War in an attempt to show just how unjustly the United States acted toward Iraq, and the power of the Committee of 300.

Here is a summary of the events that led up to the Gulf War:

• 1811-1818. Wahabis of Arabia attack and occupy Mecca, but are forced to withdraw by the Sultan of Egypt

• 1899, Nov. 25. Sheik Mubarak al-Sabah cedes part of the Rumalia oilfields to Britain. Land ceded was recognized for 400 years as Iraqi territory. Very sparsely populated up until 1914. Kuwait becomes a British protectorate.

• 1909-1915, British use Col. Thomas Lawrence of British intelligence to befriend the Arabs. Lawrence assures the Arabs that Gen. Edmund Allenby would keep the Jews out of Palestine. Lawrence was not advised of Britain's real intent Sheriff Hussein, the ruler of Mecca, raises an Arab army to attack the Turks. Ottoman empire's presence in Palestine and Egypt is destroyed.

• 1913. British secretly agree to arm, train and supply Abdul Aziz and Wahabi families to prepare for conquest of Arabian city states.

• 1916. British troops move into Sinai and Palestine. Sir Archibald Murray tells Lawrence it is a move designed to forestall Jewish immigration, which Sheriff Hussein accepts. Hussein declares an Arab state on June 27; becomes king on Oct 29. On Nov. 6, 1916, Britain, France and Russia recognize Hussein as head of the Arab people; confirmed on Dec. 15 by British government

• 1916. In a bizarre action, British get India to recognize Arab city-states of Nejd, Qaif and Jubail as possessions of the Ibn Saud of Abdul Aziz family.

• 1917. British troops seize Baghdad. Balfour Declaration is signed by Lord Rothschild who betrays the Arabs and grants homeland to the Jews in Palestine. Gen. Allenby occupies Jerusalem.

• 1920. San Remo Conference. Independence of Turkey; oil disputes settled. The start of British control of oil rich countries in the Middle East. British government establishes puppet regime in Basra, ruled by King Faisal of Syria. Ibn Saud Abdul Aziz attacks Taif in Hijaz, only able to capture it after four year struggle.

• 1922. Aziz sacks Jauf and murders Shalan family dynasty. Balfour Declaration is approved by the League of Nations.

• 1923. Turkey, Germany and France object to British occupation of Iraq and call for summit at Lausanne. Britain agrees to freedom for Iraq, but hangs onto Mosul oilfields in order to create a separate entity situation in northern Iraq. In May, British weaken the rule of Emir Abdullah Ibn Hussein, son of Sheriff Hussein of Mecca, and call the new country "Transjordan."

• 1924. On Oct 13, Wahabis and Adbul Aziz attack and capture the holy city of Mecca, burial place of prophet Muhammad. Hussein and his two sons are forced to flee.

• 1926. Ibn Saud proclaims himself as King of Hijaz and Sultan of Nejd.

• 1927. British sign treaty with Ibn Saud and Wahabis, granting complete freedom of action and recognizing captured city-states as his possessions. This marked the beginning of British Petroleum and the American oil companies battling to outdo each other in obtaining oil concessions.

• 1929. Britain signs a new treaty of friendship with Iraq recognizing its independence, but leaves Kuwait's status unresolved. First large-scale attacks are aimed at Jewish immigrants by Arabs at disputed "Wailing Wall."

• 1930. British government releases the White Paper by the Passfield Commission, which recommends that Jewish immigration to Palestine be halted immediately, and that no more land be awarded to Jewish settlers because of "too many landless Arabs." The recommendation is modified by the British parliament and only token action is taken.

• 1932. Arabia is renamed Saudi Arabia.

• 1935. British Petroleum builds pipeline from disputed Mosul oilfields to port of Haifa. Peel Commission reports to British parliament that Jews and Arabs can never work together; recommends partitioning of Palestine.

• 1936. Saudis sign a non-aggression pact with Iraq, but break it during the Gulf war. The Saudis decided to back the United States and in the process, thereby dishonored the previous agreement with Iraq.

• 1937. Pan Arab Conference inSyria rejects the Peel Commission's plan for Jewish immigration into Palestine. British arrest the Arab leaders and deport them to Seychelles.

• 1941. Britain invades Iran to "save" the country from Germany.

• 1946. Transjordan is granted independence by Britain and is renamed "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" in 1949. Widespread and violent opposition by Zionists follows.

• 1952. Serious rioting in Iraq over continued British presence, outrage over U.S. complicity with oil companies..

• 1953. New government of Jordan orders British troops out of the country.

• 1954. Britain and U.S. berate Jordan for refusing to join in armistice talks with Israel, followed by downfall of the Jordanian cabinet U.S. Sixth Fleet menaces Arab countries by landing Marines in Lebanon (an act of war). King Hussein is not intimidated and responds by denouncing the strong U.S. ties with Israel.

• 1955. Palestinians on West Bank riot Israel declares "Palestinians a Jordanian problem."

• 1959. Iraq protests inclusion of Kuwait in CETAN membership. Accuses Saudis of "aiding British imperialism." British control over Kuwait is strengthened. Iraq's outlet to the sea is cut off.

• 1961. Premiere Kassem of Iraq warns Britain "Kuwaitis Iraqi land and has been for 400 years." Kassem is later assassinated mysteriously. British government declares Kuwait an independent nation. British oil companies are given control over a large part of the Rumalia oilfields. Kuwait signs treaty of friendship with Britain. British troops move in to counter possible attack by Iraq.

• 1962. Britain and Kuwait terminate defense pact

• 1965. Crown Prince Sabah Al Salem Al Sabah becomes Emir of Kuwait

By now, the Committee of 300's grip on Middle East oil was almost total. The road Britain and America had followed was not a new one, but an extension began by Lord Bertrand Russell:

"If a world government is to work smoothly, certain economic conditions will have to be fulfilled. Various raw materials are essential to industry. Of these, at present one of the most important is oil. Probably uranium, though no longer needed for the purposes of war, will be essential for industrial use of nuclear energy. There is no justification in the private ownership of such essential raw material sand I think we should include in undesirable ownership, not only ownership by individuals or companies, but also separate states. The raw material without which industry is impossible should belong to the international authority and granted to separate nations." 

This turned out to be a profound statement by the "prophet" of the Committee of 300, coming precisely when British-U.S. meddling in Arab affairs was at its height. Note that Russell already knew then that there would be no nuclear war. Russell declared himself in favor of a One World Government, or the New World Order spoken of by President Bush. The Gulf War was a continuation of earlier efforts to wrest control of Iraqi oil from its rightful owners and to protect the entrenched position of British Petroleum and other majors of the oil cartel for the Committee of 300.

The Balfour Declaration is the kind of document for which the British became infamous. In 1899, they had pressed deception against the tiny Boer Republics in South Africa to new levels. While talking peace, already disturbed by the hundreds of thousands of vagabonds and carpet-baggers who flocked to the Boer republics in the wake of the biggest gold strike in the history of the world, Queen Victoria was preparing for war.

The Gulf War was fought for two primary reasons: The first concerns the hatred of all things Muslim by the RIIA and their American cousins of the CFR, in addition to their strong desire to protect their surrogate, Israel. The second was unbridled greed and a desire to control all Middle East oil-producing countries.

As to the war itself, U.S. maneuvering began at least three years before Bush officially went on the offensive. The United States first armed Iraq, and then incited it to attack Iran in a war which decimated both countries: the so-called "meat grinder war." The war was designed to weaken both Iraq and Iran to the point that they would no longer be a credible threat to British and U.S. oil interests, and, as a military force, they would no longer pose a threat to Israel.

In 1981, Iraq asked the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) in Brescia, Italy, for a line of credit buy weapons from an Italian company. That company later sold land mines to Iraq. Then, in 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism in response to a State Department request

In 1983, the U.S. Agricultural Department provided Iraq with loans amounting to $365 million, ostensibly to purchase agricultural products, but subsequent events disclosed that the money was used to purchase military hardware. In 1985, Iraq approached the BNL branch in Atlanta, Georgia, with a request that the bank process its loans from the U.S. Agricultural Department's Commodity Credit Corporation.

In January of 1986, a high-level CIA-National Security Agency (NSA) meeting was held in Washington, DC. Discussed was whether the United States should give intelligence data it had on Iraq to the government in Teheran. Then Deputy NSA Director Robert Gates was against doing so, but was overruled by the National Security Council.

It was not until 1987 that President Bush made a number of public references supporting Iraq, one in which he said:

"the U.S. must build a solid relationship with Iraq for the future." 

Shortly thereafter, BNL's Atlanta branch secretly agreed to a $2.1 billion commercial loan to Iraq. In 1989, hostilities between Iraq and Iran came to an end.

By 1989, a secret memorandum prepared by the State Department Intelligence Agency warned Secretary James Baker:

"Iraq retains its heavy-handed approach to foreign affairs...and is working hard at (making) chemical and biological weapons and new missiles." 

Baker did nothing of any substance about the report, and as we shall see, later actively encouraged President Saddam Hussein to believe that the United States would be even-handed about Iraq's policies toward its Middle East neighbors.

In April of the same year, a nuclear proliferation report by the Department of Energy said that Iraq had embarked on a project to build an atomic bomb. This was followed by a June report prepared jointly by Eximbank, (a U.S. banking agency), the CIA and the Federal Reserve Banks, which said that a joint study revealed that Iraq was integrating U.S. technology "directly into Iraq's planned missile, tank and armored personnel carrier industries."

On August 4,1989, the FBI raided the offices of the BNL in Atlanta. Some suspect that this was done to preempt any real investigation into whether loans for Iraq were used to buy sensitive military technology and other military know-how, rather than for the purposes extended by the Agricultural Department.

During September, in an effort insiders say was an advance move to absolve itself from blame, the CIA reported to Baker that Iraq was obtaining the ability to make nuclear weapons through a variety of front companies suspected of links with Pakistan at the highest levels. Pakistan had been long suspected, and even accused by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission of making nuclear weapons, which led to a major rift in relations with Washington, described as being "at an all time low."

In October of 1989 the State Department wrote a "damage control" memo to Baker, recommending that Baker "wall-off" the Agriculture Department's credit program from BNL investigators. The memo was initialed by Baker, which some interpret as his approval of the recommendation. It is generally recognized that by initialing a document, approval is given to its content and any course of action laid out

Shortly thereafter, in a surprise turn, President Bush signed National Security Directive 26, which supported U.S. trade with Iraq.

"Access to the Persian Gulf and key friendly states in that area is vital to U.S. national security," Bush said. 

Here then, is confirmation that as early as October, 1989, the President was indulging in diplomacy by deception, acting as though Iraq was an ally of the United States, when in fact, preparations for a war against the country were already underway.

Then, on Oct. 26, 1989, slightly more than three weeks after Bush declared Iraq a friendly state, Baker called Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter with a request that the agricultural trade credits for Iraq be increased. In response, Yeutter ordered his department to provide $1 billion in insured trade credits for the Baghdad government, even though the Treasury Department expressed reservations.

Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger assured the Treasury that the money was needed for "geopolitical reasons":

"Our ability to influence Iraqi behavior in areas from Lebanon to the Middle East peace process (an oblique reference to Israel), is enhanced by expanded trade," said Eagleburger. 

However, this was not enough to allay a suspicious and hostile element of the Democrats in Congress, possibly reacting to intelligence information received from Israel. In January of 1990, Congress barred loans to Iraq and eight other countries congressional investigators said were hostile toward the United States. This was a setback for the major plan to go to war against Iraq, which Bush did not trust Congress to know. So, on January 17,1990, he exempted Iraq from the congressional ban.

Possibly fearing that Congressional intervention might upset war plans, State Department specialist John Kelly fired off a memo to Undersecretary of State for Policy Robert Kimit, in which the Agriculture Department was castigated for its tardiness in moving on the loans to Iraq. This February, 1990 incident is of major importance in proving that the president was anxious to complete stocking Iraq with arms and technology so that the timetable for war would not fall.

On February 6, James Kelly, a lawyer for the New York Federal Reserve Bank who was responsible for regulating BNL operations in the United States, wrote a memo which ought to have caused a great deal of alarm: A planned trip to Italy by Federal Reserve criminal investigators was put off. The BNL had cited concerns regarding the Italian press. A trip to Istanbul was put off at the request of Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.

Kelly's February, 1990 memo said in part:

"...A key component of the relationship and failure to approve the loans will feed Saddam's paranoia and accelerate his swing against us." 

If we did not already know about the war planned against Iraq, the latter statement would appear to be an amazing one. How could the United States go on arming President Hussein if it feared that he would "swing against us"? Logically, the proper course of action would have been to suspend the credits rather than arm a nation that the State Department believed might turn against us.

March of 1990 brought some surprising developments. Documents produced in federal court in Atlanta showed that Reinaldo Petrignani, Italy's ambassador to Washington, told Thornburgh that incriminating Italian officials in the BNL investigation would be "tantamount to a slap in the face for the Italians." This conversation was subsequently denied as having taken place by both Petrignani and Thornburgh. It proved one thing: the deep involvement of the Bush administration in the BNL loans to Iraq.

In April of 1990, the Interagency Deputies Committee of the National Security Council, headed by Deputy National Security Adviser Rob ert Gates, met at the White House for discussions about a possible change in U.S. attitude toward Iraq — yet another twist in the cyclone of diplomacy by deception.

In yet another unexpected turn of events that same month, apparently not anticipated by Bush or the NSA, the Treasury Department balked at the Agriculture Department's $500 million commodity trade credits, refusing to allow it to go through. In May of 1990, the Treasury Department let it be known that it had received a memo from the NSA objecting to its move. The memo said that NSA staff wanted to prevent Agricultural credits "from being cancelled, as this would exacerbate the already strained foreign policy relations with Iraq."

By July 25,1990, probably earlier than the Committee of 300 preferred, the trap was sprung. Spurred on by a mounting number of setbacks, President Bush authorized U.S. ambassador April Glaspie to meet with President Hussein. The purpose of the meeting was to reassure President Saddam Hussein that the United States had no quarrel with him and would not intervene in any inter-Arab border disputes, according to a number of as yet unreleased State Department cables which Rep. Henry Gonzalez was able to obtain. This was a clear reference to Iraq's dispute with Kuwait over the Rumalia oilfields.

The Iraqis took Glaspie's words as a signal from Washington that they could send their army into Kuwait, thereby buying right into the plot As Ross Perot stated during the November 1992 elections:

"I suggest that in a free society owned by the people, the American people ought to know what we told Ambassador Glaspie to tell Saddam Hussein, because we spent a lot of money and risked lives and lost lives in that effort and did not accomplish most of our objectives." 

Meanwhile Glaspie disappeared from view and was sequestered to a secret location shortly after the news broke about her part in the diplomacy by deception practiced against Iraq. Finally, after much media prodding, and flanked by a couple of liberal Senators, who acted as if Glaspie was a wallflower in need of great chivalry, she appeared before a Senate Committee and denied everything. Shortly afterward, Glaspie "resigned" from the State Department, and no doubt now lives in comfortable obscurity from which she ought to be wrenched, placed under oath in a court of law and forced to testify to the truth of how the Bush administration calculatingly deceived not only Iraq, but also this nation.

On July 29,1990, four days after Glaspie met with the Iraqi president, Iraq began moving its army toward the border with Kuwait. Continuing with the deception, Bush sent a team to Capitol Hill to testify against imposing sanctions against Iraq, thereby adding to President Hussein's belief thath is impending invasion of Iraq would be winked at by Washington.

Two days later, on Aug. 2,1990, the Iraqi Army crossed the artificially created border of Kuwait Also during August the CIA, in a top secret report, told Bush that Iraq was not going to invade Saudi Arabia, and that the Iraqi military had not made any contingency plans to do so.

In September of 1990, Italian Ambassador Rinaldo Petrignani accompanied by a number of BNL officials, met with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators. At the meeting, Petrignani said that the BNL was,

"the victim of a terrible fraud—the bank's good name is of great importance, as the Italian state is a majority owner." 

This came to light in documents turned over to the House Banking Committee's chairman, Henry Gonzalez.

To experienced watchers, this meant one thing: a plot was in motion to let the real culprits in Rome and Milan off the hook and shift blame to the local fall guy. No wonder a "not guilty" attitude was adopted: subsequently incontrovertible evidence surfaced that the loans made by the BNL's Atlanta branch had the full blessing of the head office of the BNL in Rome and Milan.

On Sept 11,1990, Bush called for a joint session of Congress and stated falsely that on Aug. 5,1990, Iraq had 150,000 troops and 1500 tanks in Kuwait, poised to strike at Saudi Arabia. Bush based his statement on false information relayed from the Defense Department. The claim was that 120,000 Iraqi troops and 850 tanks were in Kuwait. The Defense Department must have known this information was false, otherwise its KH11 and KH12 satellites were malfunctioning, and we know that they were not. Apparently Bush needed to exaggerate to convince Congress that Iraq presented a threat to Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the Russian military released its own satellite pictures showing the exact troop strength in Kuwait As a cover up for Bush, Washington held out that the satellite pictures were from a commercial satellite company that had been sold to ABC television, among others. By turning the satellite pictures over to a commercial company, Russia engaged in a bit of deception of its own. Clearly, the Defense Department and the president had been lying to the American people, and were now caught out in their lies.

By now, Chairman Gonzalez was asking embarrassing questions about the Bush administration's possible involvement in the BNL scandal. In September of 1990, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs wrote a memo to the attorney general which said:

"Our best attempt to thwart any further congressional enquiry by the House banking Committee into (BNL) loans is to have you contact Chairman Gonzalez directly." 

On Sept. 26, a few days after he received the memo was, Thornburgh phoned Gonzalez and told him not to investigate the BNL matter because of national security issues involved. Gonzalez bluntly re fused to call off the House Banking Committee investigation of BNL. Thornburgh later denied ever having told Gonzalez to leave BNL alone. Gonzalez soon got hold of a memo written by the State Department dated Dec. 18, which exposed Thornburgh's "national security" plea. The memo also stated that the Justice Department's investigation of BNL didn't raise any national security issue or problems.

Further, the Defense Intelligence Agency announced that its teams in Italy had learned that BNL's Brescia branch loaned Iraq $255 million to buy land mines from an Italian manufacturer. The day the "allied victory" in the Gulf War was announced, the Justice Department indicted the fall guy for the BNL scandal, as expected. Christopher Drogoul was accused of illegally loaning Iraq in excess of $5 billion and accepting kick-backs of up to $2.5 million. Few believed that an obscure loan officer at a small branch of an Italian state-owned bank would have had authority to enter into transactions of such magnitude on his own volition.

From the period January to April of 1990, as more and more pressure built up for the Bush administration to explain the glaring anomalies in the BNL scandal, the National Security Council took steps to close ranks. On April 8, Nicolas Rostow, the NSC's general counsel, organized a top-level meeting to explore ways of fending off the pressing requests for documentation from, among others, House Banking Committee Chairman Gonzalez.

The meeting was attended by C. Boyden Gray, legal counsel to Bush, Fred Green, National Security Agency counsel, CIA general counsel Elizabeth Rindskopf and a whole slew of lawyers representing the Agriculture, Defense, Justice, Treasury, Energy and Commerce Departments. Rostow opened the meeting by warning that Congress seemed intent on probing the Bush administration's relations with Iraq before the war.

Rostow told the lawyers that,

"the National Security Council is providing coordination for the administration's response to congressional documents requests for Iraq-related material," adding that any congressional requests for documents should be checked for "issues of executive privilege, national security, etc. Alternatives to providing documents should be explored." 

This information was eventually obtained by Gonzalez.

Cracks were now starting to appear in an otherwise solid administration stonewalling policy. On June4, 1990, officials at the Commerce Department admitted that they had deleted information on export documents to obscure the fact that the department had in deed granted the export licenses for shipments of military hardware and technology to Iraq.

Even larger cracks began to appear in July, when Stanley Moskowitz, the CIA's liaison to Congress, reported that the BNL bank officials in Rome not only were fully aware of what had transpired at the Atlanta branch long before the indictment of Drogoul was handed down, but had in fact signed and approved the loans for Iraq. This was a direct contradiction of Ambassador Petrignani's statement to the Justice Department that the BNL's Rome office knew nothing about the Iraq loans made by its Atlanta branch.

In May of 1992, in yet another a surprising turn, Attorney General William Barr wrote a letter to Gonzales in which he charged Gonzalez with harming "national security interests" by revealing the administration's policy toward Iraq. In spite of the serious charge, Barr provided no confirmation to back the allegation. Clearly, the president was rattled, and the November elections were just around the corner. This point was not lost on Gonzalez, who called Barr's charge "politically motivated."

On June 2,1992, Drougal pleaded guilty to bank fraud. An unhappy Judge Marvin Shoobasked the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the BNL case in its entirety. But on July 24, 1992, the attack on Gonzalez resumed with a letter from CIA Director Robert Gates. He criticized the chairman for disclosing the fact that the CIA and a number of other U.S. intelligence agencies knew about the Bush administration's pre-Gulf War relationship with Iraq. Later that month. Gates' letter was released by the House Banking Committee for publication.

By August, the former chief of the Atlanta office of the FBI openly accused the Justice Department of dragging its feet and delaying indictments for nearly a year in the BNL affair. And on Aug. 10 1992, Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's pre-Gulf War relationship with Iraq, as requested by the House Judiciary Committee.

Then, on Sept 4, Barr wrote a letter to the House Banking Committee stating that he would not comply with the Committee's subpoenas for BNL documents and related information. It soon became evident that Barr must have instructed all government departments to refuse to cooperate with the House Banking Committee, because four days after Barr's letter was released, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Customs Service, the Commerce Department and the National Security Agency all stated that their intention was not to comply with subpoenas for information and documents on the BNL issue.

Gonzalez carried the battle to the floor of the House and disclosed that based on the CIA's own July 1991 report it was clear that BNL's top management in Rome knew of, and had approved the Atlanta-branch loans to Iraq. Federal prosecutors in Atlanta were floored by the highly damaging information.

On Sept. 17,1991, in an obvious damage control measure, the CIA and the Justice Department agreed to tell federal prosecutors in Atlanta that the only information they had on BNL had already been made publicly available, which was a blatant and reckless falsehood with shattering ramifications. The scramble to exculpate themselves and their departments is what led to all the finger pointing and internal fighting that showered all the news stations just before the election.

With the knowledge that he had spent most of his last 100 days in office desperately trying to keep the lid on the scandals erupting all around him, Bush got a life-line thrown to him: the media agreed not to report the details of the plot. The "national security" smokescreen had done the job.

In an ongoing effort to put distance between itself and the other parties involved in the BNL-Iraq-gate cover-up, the Justice Department agreed that it would soon release highly damaging documents showing the CIA's prior knowledge of the BNL's Rome office "green light" for loans for Iraq. The information was subsequently released to Judge Shoob, whose earlier doubts about the indictment of Drougal appeared to be vindicated.

Then, on Sept 23, 1992, Gonzalez announced that he had received classified documents which clearly showed that in January of 1991, the CIA knew about the BNL's high-level approval of the loans for Iraq. In his letter, Gonzalez expressed concern over Gates' lies to federal prosecutors in Atlanta regarding the BNL's Rome office not being aware of what its Atlanta branch was doing.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also accused Gates of misleading the Justice Department, federal prosecutors and Judge Shoob about the extent of CIA knowledge of BNL events. The Justice Department allowed Drogoul to withdraw his guilty plea on Oct. 1.. The lone battle, waged and won by the chairman of the House Banking Committee against the Bush administration was ignored by the median deference to the wishes of the Republican election committee and to protect Bush, one of its favorite sons.

Judge Shoob excused himself from the BNL case a few days later. He said that he had concluded that,

"it is likely that the U.S. intelligence agencies were aware of BNL-Atlanta's relations with Iraq... The CIA continues to be uncooperative in attempts to discover information about its knowledge of or involvement in the funding of Iraq by BNL Atlanta." 

The source of this information could not originally be revealed, but the gist of it later appeared in a report published by the New York Times.

A major development occurred when Sen. David Boren accused the CIA of a cover-up and of lying to Justice Department officials. In its response, the CIA admitted that it gave the wrong information to the Justice Department in its September report-hardly any great admission, as Gonzalez, among others, already had proof of this. The CIA claimed it was an honest mistake. There was "no attempt to mislead anyone or cover-up anything" the agency contended. The CIA also reluctantly acknowledged that it had not released all of the documents it had on BNL.

The very next day, CIA chief counsel Rindskopf (who participated in the 1991 damage control briefing held by Nicolas Rostow of the National Security Agency), picked up the "honest mistake" refrain, calling it a "certainly regrettable mistake" brought on by a faulty filing system. Was it the best excuse that the chief lawyer for the CIA could come up with? Neither Sen. Boren or Rep. Gonzalez were convinced.

It should be recalled that the real purpose of the 1991 meeting called by Nicholas Rostow was to control the access to all government documents and information that would show the true relationship between the Bush administration and the Baghdad government Obviously those responsible for trying to break through the wall placed around such information had every right to be highly skeptical

The damage control efforts instituted by Rostow took another pounding on Oct. 8, 1992, when CIA officials were called upon to testify before a closed-door session of the Senate Intelligence Committee. According to information received from sources close to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA officials had an uncomfortable time of it, eventually trying to pin blame on the State Department, claiming that they withheld information, and then gave misleading information on BNL-Atlanta at the insistence of a senior official of the Justice Department All they had done, CIA officials said, was what the Justice Department told them to do.

An official denial was issued on Oct. 9,1992, with the State Department refusing to take responsibility for having asked the CIA to withhold relevant BNL documents from the Atlanta prosecutors. The Justice Department then delivered its own broadside, accusing the CIA of delivering some classified documents in a disorganized manner while withholding others. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee agreed to launch its own investigation into these charges and counter-charges.

By now, it was becoming clear that all the parties who attended the April 8, 1991 meeting were scrambling to distance themselves from the matter. Then, on Oct. 10, the FBI announced that it, too, would investigate the BNL-Atlanta case. The CIA denied it had ever admitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee that it had withheld information at the special request of the Justice Department

These strange events were proceeding in such rapid succession that daily announcements of accusations by one government agency or another continued through Oct 14, 1992. The Justice Department announced on Oct 11 that its Office of Professional Responsibility would lead an investigation of itself and of the CIA, and that the FBI would help. Assistant Attorney General Robert S. Meuller III, the Justice Department spokesman for its Public Integrity Section, was placed in charge. Information said to have originated from Sen. David Boren's office appeared to indicate that Meuller was directly involved

On Oct. 12, 1992, just two days after the FBI had announced that it would conduct its own investigation of the BNL case, ABC News charged that it had received information indicating that William Sessions, head of the FBI, was under investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. The accusations charged Sessions with the improper use of government airplanes, having a fence built around his house at government expense and abuse of telephone privileges — none of which were in any way linked to the BNL case.

The ABC news report came on the heels of the Oct. 10 announcement by the FBI that it would investigate the BNL case, and was an attempt to pressure Sessions into calling off the promised FBI investigation. Sen. Boren told newsmen:

"The timing of the accusations against Judge Sessions makes me wonder if an attempt is being made to pressure him not to conduct an independent investigation." 

Others pointed to a statement made by Sessions on Oct. 11 that his investigation would not seek help from Justice Department officials, who themselves, might be the subject of investigation. "The Justice Department will not participate in the (FBI) inquiry and the FBI will not share information," Sessions said. In the final days of his bid for reelection, Bush continued to flatly deny that he had any knowledge of or personal involvement in the Iraq-gate or Iran/Contra scandals.

Things took a turn for the worse for the president when on Oct. 12, 1992, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote to Attorney General Barr and asked for a special prosecutor to be appointed:

"...Since very high-level officials may well have been knowledgeable of or involved in an effort to absolve BNL-Rome of complicity in the activities of BNL-Atlanta, no arm of the executive branch can investigate U.S. government conduct in this case without at least the appearance of a conflict of interest." 

Metzenbaum's letter stated that there were indications of "secret U.S. government involvement in arms sales to Iraq," which came out of court proceedings in Atlanta. Gonzalez fired off a stinging letter to Barr requesting that a special prosecutor be appointed to "address the repeated clear failures and obstruction of the leadership of the Justice Department. The best way to accomplish this is to do the right thing and submit your resignation," Gonzalez charged.

Then on Oct 14, Sen. Boren wrote to Barr telling him to appoint a special independent prosecutor:

"A truly independent investigation is required to determine whether federal crimes were committed in the government's handling of the BNL case." 

Boren went on to say that both the Justice Department and the CIA had engaged in a cover-up of the BNL case. The very next day, the CIA released a cable from its station chief in Rome, which quoted an unidentified source as charging that high officials in Italy and the United States were bribed, apparently to keep them from saying what they knew about the BNL-Atlanta case.

This was followed by a five-day lull in the firestorm surrounding the Bush administration until the Senate Select Committee began its investigation into charges that the CIA and the NSA used front companies to supply Iraq with military hardware and technology in breach of federal law. Some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also called for Barr to appoint an independent prosecutor, which he again refused to do.

Bush struggled for his political life as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh handed down an indictment against former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, accusing him of lying to Congress. Sources in Washington said, "there was pandemonium in the White House." Weinberger, meanwhile, indicated that he would not play the role of fall guy for the president According to one source, C. Boyden Gray told the president that the only course of action open to him was to pardon Weinberger.

So, on Christmas Eve, 1992, Bush pardoned Weinberger and five other key players in the Iran/Contra scandal: Former national Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, CIA's Clair George, Duane Clarridge and Alan Fiers, and former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams. The Walsh was quick to express his anger to the news media.

The presidential clemency,

"demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office-deliberately abusing the public trust without consequences...The Iran/Contra cover-up, which has continued for six years, has now been completed... This office was informed only within the past two weeks, on Dec. 11, 1992, that President Bush had failed to produce to investigators his highly relevant contemporaneous notes (the Bush diary) despite repeated requests for such documents... In the light of President Bush's own misconduct in withholding his daily diary, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who have lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations." 

Perhaps Walsh did not know what he was up against: nor that the cover-up had been going for a much longer time than he suspected. The case of the Israeli agent Ben-Menashe is one in point. The House October Surprise Task Force did not see fit to call Ben-Menashe as a witness. Had the committee done so, they would have heard that Ben-Menashe told "Time" correspondent Rajai Samghabadi about a vast "off the books" arms trade going on between Israel and Iran back in 1980.

During Ben-Menashe's trial in 1989,at which Samghabadi testified for him, it came out that the story of a huge illicit arms sale by Israel to Iran was repeatedly offered to "Time" magazine, who refused to print it, even though it had been substantiated by Bruce Van Voorst, a former CIA agent working for "Time." Walsh did not appear to know that the Eastern Liberal Establishment, run by the Committee of 300, is unconcerned about the law, because, they say they are the law.

Walsh came up against the same brick wall that Sen. Eugene McCarthy had run into when he attempted to get William Bundy before his committee and only got as far as John Foster Dulles. It was not surprising that Walsh would come up short, especially in going after a Skull and Bonesman. McCarthy had attempted to get Dulles to testify about certain CIA activities, but Dulles refused to cooperate.

Will R. James Woolsey, the man appointed by Clinton to run the CIA, do anything to bring the guilty to justice? Woolsey has credentials which include membership in the National Security Club, serving under Henry Kissinger as a National Security Council staffer, and as Under Secretary of the Navy in the Carter administration. He also served on numerous commissions and became a close associate of Les Aspin and Albert Gore.

Woolsey has another close friend in Dave McMurdy of the House Intelligence Committee and also a key Clinton adviser. A lawyer by profession, Woolsey was a partner in the establishment law firm of Shae and Gardner, during which time he acted as a foreign agent — without registering as such with the Senate. Woolsey also long enjoyed a client-attorney relationship with a top CIA official.

One of Woolsey's most notable clients was Charles Allen, a national intelligence officer at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Allen was accused by his boss, William Webster, in an internal investigation report of the Iran/Contra scandal of hiding evidence. It seems that Allen never handed over all of his files about dealings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, ago-between in the Iran/Contra affair. Webster threatened Allen, who turned to Woolsey for help saying he had made "a simple mistake."

When Sessions discovered that Allen was being represented by Woolsey, he dropped the matter.

Those who were close to the issue say that with Woolsey at the helm of the CIA, others who were not pardoned by Bush will find an "open door" in Woolsey.

Part 3 : Diplomacy By Deception

Grand Larceny - United States Oil Policies Abroad

U.S. oil policies in foreign countries provides a consistent history of diplomacy by deception. In researching State Department documents for this book, I discovered numerous documents which openly pro claimed support for Standard Oil in Mexico and U.S. petroleum companies in the Middle East. It then became clear to me that the State Department was involved in a gigantic plot of diplomacy by deception in the foreign oil business.

A State Department directive dated Aug.16,1919 to all consuls and embassies in foreign countries urged massive spying and redoubling of foreign service personnel to assist the major American oil companies, an extract of which follows:

"Gentlemen: The vital importance of securing adequate supplies of mineral oil both for present and future needs of the United States has been forcibly brought to the attention of the Department The development of proven fields and exploration of new areas is being aggressively conducted in many parts of the world by nationals of various countries and concessions for mineral rights are being actively sought It is desired to have the most complete and recent information regarding such activities by either United States citizens or by others.

"You are accordingly instructed to obtain and forward promptly from time to time information regarding mineral oil concession, change of ownership of oil property, or important changes in ownership, or control of corporate companies concerned with oil production or distribution.

"Information regarding development of new fields or increased output of producing areas should also be forwarded. Comprehensive data are desired and reports should not be limited to points specifically mentioned above, but should include information regarding all matters of interest affecting the mineral oil industry which may arise from time to time..." 

This directive was issued following a long and bitter fight with the Mexican government As we shall see in the account that follows, A.C. Bedford, chairman of Standard Oil, had demanded that the U.S. government come into the picture:

"All proper diplomatic support in obtaining and operating oil producing property abroad should be backed by the government." 

The Federal Trade Commission promptly recommended "diplomatic support" of such oil ventures abroad.

Charles Evans Hughes also testified before the Coolidge Federal Oil Conservation Board, insisting that State Department and oil company policies be synonymous:

"The foreign policy of the government, expressed in the phrase 'Open Door', consistently prosecuted by the Department of State, has made it possible for our American interests abroad to be intelligently fostered and the needs of our people, to no slight extent, to be appropriately safeguarded." 

This really meant that a merging of government and private oil interests was necessary. It was not by accident that Evans just happened to be counsel of the American Petroleum Institute and Standard Oil.

A Case History: Exploitation of Mexican Oil

The history of exploitation of Mexican oil also serves as an example of how diplomacy by deception attains its desired ends. The conquest of Mexico's main natural resource—its oil —remains an ugly, open blot in the pages of American history.

Oil was discovered in Mexico by British construction magnate, Weetman Pearson, whose company was part of the global network of Committee of 300 companies. Pearson was not in the oil business but was backed by the British oil companies, particularly the Royal Dutch Shell Company. He soon became the leading producer in Mexico.

Mexican President Porfirio Diaz officially gave Pearson sole rights to prospect for oil, after he had already given the "sole right" to Edward Dahoney of Standard oil, who was known as "the czar of Mexican oil." As we shall see, Diaz fought for the interests of his elitist backers. He was also firmly under the influence of Dahoney and President Warren Harding.

One must go back to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in terms of which Mexico ceded Upper California, New Mexico and northern Sonora, Coahuila and Tampaulis to the United States for $15 million. Texas had been annexed by the United States in 1845. One of the main reasons for annexing Texas was that geologists knew of the vast oil fields that lay beneath its lands.

In 1876, Diaz overthrew Leordo de Tejada, and on May 2,1877, was declared president of Mexico. He remained in office until 1911, except for four years (1880-1884.) Diaz stabilized finances, undertook industrial projects, built railways and increased commerce during his dictatorial rule while remaining true to those who put him in power. Mexico's "royalty" was closely linked to the royalty of Britain and Europe.

It was the promulgation of a new mining code on Nov. 22,1884, that opened the door for Pearson to get into the oil business. Contrary to the old Spanish law, the new law provided that a title to land carried ownership of subsoil products. It also permitted the communal lands belonging to the Indians and mestizos to pass into the hands of the 1.5 million "upper class" of Mexico. It was against this background that Diaz started giving concessions to foreign investors.

The first to receive a concession was Dahoney, the close associate Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall and President Harding, to whom Dahony had donated large amounts of campaign money. In Harding's cabinet were no less than four oilmen, notably Fall. In 1900, Dahoney bought280,000 acres of Hacienda del Tulillo for $325,000. By "rewarding" President Diaz, Dahoney was literally able to steal land, or buy it at ridiculously low prices.

After four years of operations, Dahoney was producing most of the 220,000 barrels of oil coining out of Mexico. Thinking he was well established, Dahoney, on instructions from the United States government declined to increase "reward" payments to President Diaz, although the Potrero and Cero Azul fields were producing in excess of $1 million a week. This was rather typical of the selfish greed of John D., a streak that ran through the entire Rockefeller brood. At this point, Diaz, upset with Dahoney, gave Pearson a "sole concession." By 1910, Pearson's Mexican Eagle Company had acquired 58 percent of the total Mexican production.

In response, Rockefeller ordered Pearson's wells dynamited and his workers fired upon by peasants his money had armed for the purpose. Large bands of brigands were armed and trained to smash Mexican Eagle pipelines and oil installations. All of the dirty tricks taught by William "Doc" Avery Rockefeller, surfaced in John D. Rockefeller's war on Pearson.

But Pearson proved to be more than a match for Rockefeller, fighting back with similar tactics. Calculating that there was not enough oil in Mexico to continue fighting over (a grave error as it turned out), Rockefeller backed off and left the field to Pearson. Later, John D. regretted his decision to pull out of the struggle and pledged Standard's resources to create bloody chaos in Mexico. In this country we called the unrest "Mexican revolutions" which no one understood.

In recognition of his services to British oil interests, Pearson was granted the title of "Lord Cowdray," and was henceforth known by that title. He was also made a permanent member of the Committee of 300. Lord Cowdray was on good terms with President Wilson, but behind the scenes, John D. was working to undermine the relationship and get back into the business of exploiting Mexico's oil. Lord Cowdray, however, was determined to keep the bulk of Mexican oil profits in the coffers of the British government

Oil diplomacy in London and Washington differ little in aggression. Motives and methods have remained remarkably unchanged. After all, international power remains, above all, economic. On Jan. 21, 1928, Rear Admiral Charles Plunkett, commander of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, let the cat out of the bag, defending President Calvin Coolidge's $800 million navy program when he said:

"The penalty for commercial and industrial efficiency inevitably is war." 

This was in reference to the great demand for oil for oil-fired navy ship. Plunkett had his eye on Mexico's oil.

Logically, the nation that is in control of raw material assets of the world, rules it When Britain had a large navy which it needed to guard its world trade, diplomacy by deception was the key to British operations in oil-producing countries. America learned fast especially after the advent of the Dulles Illuminati family, as we shall see.

Let us return to Mexico, where, in 1911, Diaz was ousted by Francisco Madero, and uncover the role played by Standard Oil in that endeavor. Gen. Victoriano Huerto alarmed British oil interests by declaring his intention to regain control of Mexico's oil, and the British asked Lord Cowdray (who by that time had sold his Mexican operation to Shell) to get President Wilson to help them unseat Huerta.

This was a fine piece of diplomacy by deception, because the British knew that Standard Oil was behind the 1911 Madero revolution that downed President Diaz. It was a revolution Standard oil thought was necessary to stop British rape of "their" Mexican oil. Francisco Madero, who became president of Mexico on Nov. 6,1911, had little understanding of the forces who were pulling his strings, and played the political game, not realizing that politics is based solely on economics. But Huerta, who replaced him, knew how the game was played.

Standard Oil was very much involved in the downfall of Porfirio Diaz. Testimony given by a number of witnesses at the 1913 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, implicated Dahoney and Standard Oil for financing the 1911 Madero revolution. One witness, Lawrence E. Converse, told the committee members a lot more than Standard wished them to hear:

"Mr. Madero told me that as soon as the rebels (Madero's forces) made a good showing of strength, several leading bankers in El Paso (Texas) stood ready to advance him. I believe the sum was $100,000, and that Standard Oil interests had bought over the provisional government of Mexico... They (Gov. Gonzalez and Secretary of State Hernandez) said Standard Oil interests were backing Madero in his revolution..." 

The Wilson government, anxious to curb Cowdray's concessions, established diplomatic relations with the Madero government, order ing an arms embargo against any counter-revolutionists. Cowdray was cast in the role of villain by Col. House, (Woodrow Wilson's controller) when Francisco Huerta overthrew Madero.

"We do not love him (Cowdray), for we think that between him and Carden (Sir Lionel Carden, British Minister to Mexico), are large part of our troubles are made," said House. 

Col. House correctly charged that Huerta was brought to power by the British so that Standard's concessions could be crimped by expanding Lord Cowdray's oil exploitation. President Wilson refused to recog nize the Huerta government, although Britain and the other major powers did so. Wilson said:

"we can have no sympathy with those who seek to seize the power of government to advance their own personal interests or ambitions." 

A Committee of 300 spokesman told President Wilson "you talk just like a Standard Oilman." The question was posed,

"...what does the oil or commerce of Mexico amount to, in comparison with the close friendship between the United States and Great Britain? The two countries should agree on this primary principle — to leave their oil interest to fight their own battles, legal and financial." 

Those close to President Wilson said he was visibly shaken by British intelligence MI6 having uncovered his direct links with Standard's Mexican enterprises, which was starting to tarnish his Democratic president image. House warned him that the example set by Huerto in defying American power might be felt all across Latin America if the United States (read Standard Oil), did not assert itself. Here was a fine conundrum for a "Liberal Democrat" to confront.

Secretary of the Interior Fall urged the U.S. Senate to send American military forces into Mexico to "protect American lives and property." This rationale was also used by President Bush to send American troops to Saudi Arabia to "protect the lives and property" of British Petroleum and its employees, not to mention his own family's business, Zapata Oil Company. Zapata was one of the first American oil companies to become friendly with the Al Sabahs of Kuwait.

In 1913, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee convened hearings on what it called "Revolutions in Mexico." The American public, then as now, had no idea what was going on, and were led by the newspapers to believe that a whole lot of "crazy Mexicans were running around shooting at each other."

Mr. Dahoney, appearing as an expert witness was quite lyrical in his veiled request that the Washington government use force to restrain Huerta. He said:

"...it seems to me that the United States must avail itself of the enterprise and ability and the pioneer spirit of its citizens to acquire and to have and to hold a reasonable portion of the world's petroleum supplies. If it does not, it will find that supplies of petroleum not within the boundaries of the United States territory will be rapidly acquired by citizens and governments of other nations..." 

Seems like we have heard a similar quote in more recent times, where "madman" Saddam Hussein was supposed to be a threat the world's oil supplies. Secretary Fall added to his appeals in the Senate for armed intrusion into Mexico:

"...and lend their assistance (i.e. U.S. military forces) to the restoration of order and maintenance of peace in that unhappy country and the placing of administrative functions in the hands of capable and patriotic citizens of Mexico." 

The resemblance between the deception perpetrated against the Senate and the people of the United States by Dahoney of Standard Oil and Secretary Fall bears an eerie resemblance to the rhetoric of Bush prior to and during his illegal war against Iraq. Bush said it was necessary for American soldiers to "return democracy to Kuwait".

Once America succeeded in reclaiming Kuwait for British Petroleum (an example of the special friendship between The United States and Britain talked about by the Committee of 300 messenger during his visit to President Wilson), Bush turned his attention to "the sad and unhappy country of Iraq."

Like Wilson, who believed that "tyrant Huerta" had to be removed and Mexico restored to "order and maintenance of peace in that unhappy country by placing the administrative functions in the hands of capable and patriotic citizens of Mexico," Bush, using a similar form of diplomacy by deception said that America has got to get rid of the "tyrant Saaaddam." (Misspelling intentional.)

American were soon convinced that President Hussein was the cause of all of Iraq's problems which is what Colonel House through Wilson told the American people about President Huerta of Mexico. In both cases, the common denominator is diplomacy by deception, in Mexico and Iraq is oil and greed. Today, Council on Foreign Relations Secretary of State Warren Christopher, has replaced Dahoney, Fall and Bush, and is perpetuating the pretence that Hussein must be brought down to save the people of Iraq.

Christopher is merely continuing to use falsehoods in order to cover the Committee of 300's goal for total seizure of Iraq's oilfields. It is no different than Wilson's policy toward Huerta.

While in 1912, Wilson presented the "Huerta menace" as a danger to the Panama Canal, Bush presented Hussein as a threat to U.S. oil supplies out of Saudi Arabia. In neither case was this the truth: Wilson lied about the "threat" to the Panama Canal, and Bush lied about a "pending invasion" of Saudi Arabia by the Iraqi military. In both cases, there was no such threat Wilson's verbal assault on Heurta was made public in an address to the Inter-Allied Petroleum Council.

In a speech prepared for him by Col. House, Wilson told Congress that,

"The present situation in Mexico is incompatible with the fulfillment of international obligations on the part of Mexico, with the civilized development of Mexico herself, and with the maintenance of tolerable political and economic conditions in Central America," Wilson said. "Mexico lies at last where all the world looks on. Central America is about to be touched by great routes of the world's trade and intercourse running from Ocean to Ocean at the Isthmus..." 

In effect Wilson was announcing that, henceforth, the politics of American petroleum companies would become the policies of the United States of America.

President Wilson was completely in the grip of Wall Street and Standard Oil. Notwithstanding the fact that on May 1, 1911, the Supreme Court had ordered an anti-trust action against Standard Oil, he instructed U.S. consuls in Central America and Mexico to,

"convey to the authorities an intimation that any maltreatment of Americans is likely to raise the question of intervention." 

The quote is taken from a long State Department document, and from hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1913.

Following up on this message, Wilson instructed Secretary of State William Bryan to make it plain that he desired an early removal of President Huerta:

"It is the clear judgment that it is the immediate duty of Huerta to retire from the Mexican government, and that the United States government must now proceed to employ such means as may be necessary to secure this result" 

In the best style of an imperialist designed United States, Wilson followed up with yet another broadside at President Huerta on Nov. 12,1912:

"Huerta has to be cut off from foreign sympathy and aid and from domestic credit, whether moral or material, and to force him out If General Huerta does not retire by force of circumstances, it will become the duty of the United States to use less peaceful means to put him out" Wilson's belligerent statement is all the more shocking when we consider that it followed a peaceful election in which President Huerta was returned to office.

One wonders why if that was the case concerning Panama, John D's heir, David Rockefeller, fought so hard to give the Canal at Panama away to Colonel Torrijos, but that is the subject of another chapter under the heading of Panama and the fraudulent Carter-Torrijos treaty.

One should not be amazed that at the time the American people accepted Wilson's belligerent attack on Mexico, thinly disguised as "patriotic" and in the best interests of the United States. After all, didn't the bulk of the population, and I believe it was 87 percent of Americans, fully support Bush in his attack on Iraq, and aren't we guilty of allowing to stand, the inhuman and totally unjustified embargo against Iraq?

We ought not to be amazed at the similarity of Wilson and Bush rhetoric, for both were controlled by our upper-level, parallel secret government, even as Clinton is controlled from Chatham House in London, through the person of Mrs. Pamela Harriman. No wonder then that Warren Christopher is continuing the big lie against Iraq. Oil and greed is the driving factor in 1993, even as it was in 1912. The charges I make here against Wilson are well documented by author Anton Mohr in his book "The Oil War."

It was America that hurt Mexico the most in 1912, plunging it into a civil war falsely labeled as "revolution", even as we are the nation that hurt Iraq the most in 1991, and continue to do so, in defiance of our Constitution, which those in Congress who swore an oath to uphold, have lamentably and miserably failed to do.

Secretary Bryan, told European powers who did not like what they saw happening in Mexico, that,

"there is a more hopeful prospect of peace, of security of property and early payment of foreign obligations if Mexico is left to the forces now reckoning with one another there." 

This was classic diplomacy by deception. What Bryan did not tell the Europeans was that, far from leaving Mexico "to the forces now reckoning with one another there," Wilson had already begun to isolate Huerta using a financial and armament embargo. At the same time, he armed and financially supported the forces controlled by Venustiano Carranza and Francisco Villa, and urged them to over throw Gen. Huerta.

On April 9,1914, a stage-managed crisis was arranged in Tampico by the U.S. Consul which resulted in the arrest of a group of American Marines. The United States government demanded an apology, and, when it was not forthcoming, broke contact with the Huerta government. By April 21, the incident had been blown out of all proportion, to the point that U.S. troops received their orders to march on Vera Cruz.

By capitalizing on the Tampico incident, Wilson was able to justify ordering American naval forces into Vera Cruz. An offer by Huerta to submit the Vera Cruz affair to the Hague Court was refused by Wilson. Like his successor, Bush, in the case of President Hussein, Wilson did not let anything stand in the way of ending the rule of Gen. Huerta. In this, Wilson was ably assisted by Dahoney of Standard Oil, who advised Wilson and Bryan that he had given the rebel Carranza $100,000 in cash and $685,000 in fuel credits.

By mid-1914, Mexico was reduced to utter chaos by President Wilson's interference in its affairs. On July 5, Huerta was elected president by popular vote but resigned on July 11, when it became apparent that Wilson would foment trouble as long as he held the reins of Mexico's government.

A month later, Gen. Obregon gained control of Mexico City and installed Carranza as president. But in the north, Francisco Villa became a dictator. Villa opposed Carranza, but the United States recognized Carranza anyway. By now, Latin American countries feared U.S. intervention, which was heightened by fighting between Villa's troops and U.S. forces at Carrizal.

As a result of the clamor raised in Latin America, and especially heeding the feedback from his consultants on Latin America, Wilson ordered U.S. forces withdrawn from Mexico on Feb. 5,1917. Carranza disappointed his American backers in that he did nothing to help their cause. Rather, he tried to justify the 1911 revolution, which he said was necessary to preserve Mexico's integrity. This was not what the American oil companies had ordered him to say.

By January of 1917, the new Mexican Constitution was ready, and it came as a shock for Standard Oil and Cowdray's companies. Carranza was elected for four years. The new constitution which, in effect declared oil an inalienable natural resource of the Mexican people, took effect on Feb. 19,1918 and a new tax was also levied on oil lands and contracts made before May 1,1917.

This additional tax, covered by Article 27 of the document said the United States was "confiscatory" and in essence urged American companies in Mexico not to pay taxes. The Carranza government told Washington that taxation was a matter for "the sovereign state of Mexico." Try as it did, the U.S. State Department was unable to budge Carranza from his position that Mexican oil belonged to Mexico and, while foreigners could still invest in it they could only do so at a price — taxation. The oil companies woke up to find that Carranza had turned the tables on them.

At this point, Cowdray went to the American president with a request "to face the common enemy (nationalization) together." Carranza was now persona non grata and Cowdray tried to sell his shares because he saw more confusion coming as the three leading Mexican generals vied for power. Cowdray's offer to sell was taken up by the Royal Dutch Shell Company. Although the conditions were uncertain, Cowdray made a handsome profit from the sale of his shares.

After much fighting, in which Carranza was killed and Villa assassinated, Gen. Obregon was elected president on Sept 5,1923. On Dec. 26, Huerta led a revolt against Obregon but was defeated. Obregon was supported by Washington on the condition that he restrict application of the constitution found so objectionable by foreign oil companies. Instead, Obregon slapped a 60 percent tax on oil exports. The U.S. government and the oil companies were angered by what

For nearly five years, Washington kept up its attack on the Mexican Constitution, while hiding its real motivations. By 1927, Mexico was in civil uproar and its treasury almost empty. The Mexican government was forced to capitulate. There is no better description of what the Mexicans felt about being plundered of the oil than an editorial in "El Universal" of Mexico City, Oct. 1927:

"American imperialism is a fatal product of economic evolution. It is useless to try and persuade our northern neighbor not to be imperialistic; they cannot help being so, no matter how excellent their intentions. Let us study the natural laws of economic imperialism, in the hope that some method may be found, by which instead of blindly opposing them, we mitigate their action and turn it to our advantage." 

What followed was a complete and utter retreat from the Mexican Constitution by President Plutarco Calles. The retreat was continued by successive Mexican governments. Mexico paid for the rapprochement, retreating from the principles for which she had fought for in 1911 and 1917. On July 1,1928, Gen. Obregon was reelected president but was assassinated 16 days later. Foreign oil companies were accused of the crime and of keeping Mexico in a state of flux.

The U.S. government was acting in an alliance with Standard Oil and Lord Cowdray to force the Mexican government to roll back the Feb. 19,1918 decree which declared oil an inalienable natural resource of the Mexican people. On July 2, 1934, Gen. Lazaro Cardenas was chosen by Calles to be his successor. Cardenas then turned on Calles, calling him "too conservative," and, under pressure from British and American oil interests, had Calles arrested when he returned from the

U.S. in 1936. State Department documents leave no doubt about the hand of the U.S. government in these events.

Cardenas showed sympathy for the American and British oil companies, but was vigorously opposed by Vincente Lombardo Toledano, leader of the Confederation of Mexican Workers. Cardenas was forced to bow to demands from this group, and on Nov. 23, 1936, a new expropriation law empowered the government to seize property, especially oil lands. This was the reverse of what the U.S. government and oil companies were expecting, and panicked the oil companies.

By 1936, there were 17 foreign companies busily engaged in pumping the oil that rightfully belonged to Mexico. The situation was some thing akin to South Africa, where, ever since the Anglo Boer War (1899-1902), the Oppenheimer family of the Committee of 300 drained South Africa of its gold and diamonds, shipping them to London and Zurich, while the South African people got little benefit. The Anglo-Boer War was the first open demonstration of the might and the power of the Committee of 300.

Both with "black gold" and "yellow gold," the national resources of Mexico and South Africa, which really belong to the people, were plundered. This was accomplished under cover of diplomacy by deception, which fell apart only when national leaders of strength emerged, such as Daniel Malan, of South Africa and Lazaro Cardenas, of Mexico.

But unlike Malan, who was unable to hold back the robbing conspirators by nationalizing the gold mines, Cardenas promulgated a decree on Nov. 1,1936, in which the subsoil rights of Standard Oil and other companies was declared nationalized. The net effect of the decree deprived the oil companies of operating in Mexico and repatriating their profits to the United States. For years, Mexican oil workers had lived on the edge of poverty while Rockefeller and Cowdray added to their bloated profit coffers. Cowdray became one of the richest men in England; Americans know all to well the magnitude of the Rockefeller empire.

The blood of thousands of Mexicans had needlessly been shed because of the greed of Standard Oil, Eagle, Shell, et al. Revolutions were deliberately caused by the manipulators in the United States, always backed by the appropriate U.S. government officials. While Cowdray lived in absolute luxury and frequented the best clubs in London, Mexican oil workers were worse off than the slaves of the Pharaohs, living in squalor and huddled together in misery in shanty towns that beggared description.

On Mar.18,1938, the Cardenas government nationalized the properties of American and British oil companies. Diplomacy by deception then took a back seat to the iron fist The United States retaliated by halting the purchase of silver from Mexico. The British government broke off diplomatic relations. Secretly, Standard Oil and the British oil companies funded General Saturnino Cedillo, urging him to revolt against Cardenas. However, a massive show of support for Cardenas by the populace, ended the attempted revolt within weeks.

The United States and Britain soon instituted a boycott of Mexican oil, which devastated the national oil company known as PEMEX. Cardenas then arranged for barter agreements with Germany and Italy. Such deceitful conduct by both governments — which most people considered to be pillars of Western civilization -continued still when the Communists tried to gain control of Spain and the Mexican government attempted to break the oil boycott by sending oil to Gen. Franco's government.

In the Franco-Communist War, known as the "Spanish Civil War," Roosevelt backed the Communist side, and allowed them to recruit men and munitions in the United States. Washington adopted an official policy of "neutrality," but this piece of deception was ill concealed, and came out when Texaco was hauled onto the carpet.

PEMEX decided to supply Franco with oil, using Texaco tankers to ship it to Spanish ports. Sir William Stephenson, head of MI6 intelligence, reported Texaco to Roosevelt. As it is custom where right-wing anti-communist governments battle for the existence of their countries, the secret upper-level parallel government of the United States ordered Roosevelt to halt Mexican oil shipments to Franco. But that did not stop the Bolsheviks from recruiting in the United States, or from obtaining munitions and financing from Wall Street Texaco did not act out of sympathy for Franco or Mexico: its motive was profit This demonstrates what happens when a Fabian Socialist such as Roosevelt, directs a country that is opposed to socialism.

It was not until 1946 that a semblance of good order came to Mexico with the election of President Miguel Aleman, On Sept. 30,1947, the Mexican government made a final settlement of all American and British expropriation claims. This cost the Mexican people dearly and still left control of the oil de facto in the hands of American and British oil companies. Thus, the 1936 expropriation decree signed by Cardenas was only partially successful.

In 1966, when several writers exposed the greed and corruption of Lord Cowdray, he hired Desmond Young to write a book whitewashing and playing down his involvement with Diaz and Huerta. In 1970, President Richard Nixon, at the behest of the Council on Foreign Relations, signed an agreement with President Diaz Ordaz which called for peaceful settlement of future border and other (meaning oil) disputes.

This agreement still holds good today, and, while the methods of plundering Mexican oil have changed, the intent and motivation has not There is a common misconception over Nixon's agreement, namely, that it represented a change in Washington policy. It was meant to convey the impression that we now recognize Mexico's right to its natural resources. This is a repeat of the period when Morrow negotiated a settlement with Calles-Obregon in what the people of America were told was a "large concession by the United States," when in fact, it was hardly any concession at all as far as Washington was concerned. Such is diplomacy by deception.

Part 4 : Rockefeller - The Evil Genie

No other industry has been corrupted as much as the mighty, powerful petroleum industry, and no other industry has as justly earned the epithets hurled against it. When the American Indians led Father Joseph de la Roche D'AIlion, a French Franciscan missionary, to the mysterious pool of black waters in Western Pennsylvania, they could not have imagined what horrible results would come from it.

The oil industry has survived all attempts to breach its walls, whether by government or by private citizens. The U.S. oil industry has survived personal vendettas by the late senators Henry Jackson and Frank Church, and has emerged from numerous investigations with aplomb and its secrets intact Not even anti-trust suits could break its power.

The petroleum industry cannot be mentioned without naming John D. Rockefeller, who created Standard Oil of New Jersey. The Rockefeller name is also synonymous with greed and an unwavering lust for power. The hatred the majority of Americans feel for the Rockefellers started when the "Big Hand" surfaced in the Pennsylvania oil regions. It began among the descendants of the pioneer drillers who flocked to Titusville and Pit Head when the black "gold rush" was getting into its stride in 1865.

John D. Rockefeller's ability to rob prospectors and drillers of their oil claims is strangely reminiscent of the "pioneering" efforts of Cecil John Rhodes, Barny Barnato and other Rothschild-Warburg agents who provided the money for daylight robbery and chicanery practiced by these con artists on the Kimberly diamond and the Rand gold claims owners. Nelson Rockefeller once claimed that the family fortune was "an accident," but the facts speak otherwise.

The paranoia and need for secrecy that surrounded John D. Rockefeller was handed down to his sons and adopted as a successful defense against outside prying into oil matters. Today, the Committee of 300 accounting firm of Price Waterhouse does the accounts in such a way that even the best accountants and various Senate committees have not been able to unlock the Rockefeller finances. Such is the nature of the beast The question is often asked: "Why was Rockefeller so profoundly crooked?" One can only surmise that it was inherent in his nature.

John D. Rockefeller did not believe in letting friendship stand in the way of his progress, and warned his sons never to let "good fellowship get a hold of you." His favorite dogma concerned the wise old owl who said nothing and heard much. Early photographs of John D. show a long, grim face, small eyes, without a trace of any human qualities.

In view of his appearance, it is all the more wonder that the Clark brothers allowed John D. in as their bookkeeper, and then, as a partner in their refinery. The brothers soon found out that Rockefeller was not to be trusted. In a short space of time, they were forced out; "bought out" according to John D.

Ida Tarbell's book "The History of the Standard Oil Company", which is rich with examples of Rockefeller's cast-iron ruthlessness and his inhumanity to all, except himself.

The Standard Oil Company was the most secretly run company in the history of the United States, a tradition carried on by Exxon and its affiliates today. It is said that Standard oil was bolted down and barricaded like a fortress. Rockefeller's image became so tarnished that he hired Ivy Lee, a public relations man to help him remake his image into one of a philanthropist. But in spite of his best efforts, Lee was unable to remove the legacy of hatred left by John D. The tarnished image of Standard and the Rockefellers has carried over into the 1990s and will probably be there forever. Standard Oil was to be the standard bearer for the oil industry in its conduct toward nations with oil and gas reserves beneath their soil.

The Rockefellers have always been a law unto themselves, and very early on, they decided that the only way to escape taxation was to place the bulk of their funds and assets outside of the United States. Already

But Rockefeller's march across the continents did not go unchallenged. Public resentment of Standard reached new levels after to writers like Ida Tarbell and H.D. Lloyd exposed the fact that Standard was a company with an army of spies above local, state and federal government,

"who have declared war, negotiated peace, reduced courts, legislature and sovereign states to an unequaled obedience to its will."

Angry complaints poured into the Senate when the American people were told about Standard's monopoly practices which resulted in the Sherman Anti-trust Act. But so deliberately vague was the law, which left several issues unaddressed, that compliance was easily avoided by Rockefeller and his brood of lawyers. Rockefeller once described it as "an exercise in public relations with no teeth to it". Never was John D. Rockefeller's influence in the Senate more keenly felt than during the Sherman Anti-trust debates. It was a time when individual senators were subjected to great pressure by Rockefeller lobbyists.

Rockefeller suffered a temporary setback when, on May 11,1911 Chief Justice Edward White handed down his decision in an anti-trust case brought against Standard by Frank Kellogg: Standard was to shed all of its subsidiaries within 6 months. Rockefeller responded by employing an army of writers who explained that the "special nature" of the oil trade did not lend itself to normal business methods; it had to be treated as a special entity, to be handled just as John D. Rockefeller had done.

To dilute Judge White's ruling, Rockefeller set up his own form of government. The new "government" took the form of foundations and philanthropic institutions, modeled after the patronage system of the royal courts of Europe. These institutions and foundations would shield the Rockefeller fortune from income tax, which his paid hirelings in the Senate had warned him would be coming in the years ahead.

This was the beginning of the petroleum industry's "government within government," power which is still in place today. No doubt the CFR owes its rapid rise to power to Rockefeller and Harold Pratt In 1914, a member of the Senate called Rockefeller's empire, "the secret government of the United States." Rockefeller's strategists called for a private intelligence agency, and following their advice, Rockefeller literally bought the personnel and equipment of Reinhardt Heydrich's SS intelligence service, which today is known as "Interpol."

With intelligence likened to the best of Heydrich's SS intelligence behind them, the Rockefellers were able to infiltrate countries, virtually take over their governments, change their tax laws and foreign policies and, then pressure the U.S. government to fall in. If taxation laws became tougher, the Rockefellers would simply get the law changed. It is this bacillus in the oil industry that closed out local production that would have made America totally independent of foreign oil. The net result? Higher prices for the American consumer and obscene profits for the oil companies.

The Rockefellers were soon on the scene in the Middle East, but their efforts to gain concessions were blocked by Harry F. Sinclair. It seems that Sinclair was able to beat out the Rockefellers at every turn. Then came a dramatic reversal, the Tea Pot Dome Scandal in which Sinclair's close friend, Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall, and Fall's friend Dahoney were indicted for grabbing the Tea Pot Dome and Elk Hills Naval Oil Reserves for private gain. There were many who voiced concern that the Tea Pot Dome Scandal was set up by the Rockefellers to discredit and remove Sinclair as an unwelcome competitor.

The scandal shook Washington, and cost Fall his job, (the origin of the term "fall guy"). Sinclair was barely able to stay out of prison. All of his lucrative contracts with Persia and Russia were canceled. To this day it is widely suspected, but not proved, that the Tea Pot Dome scandal was a Rockefeller "sting" operation. Eventually, most of Sinclair's concessions in the Middle East, with the exception of those held by Britain, passed into Rockefeller hands.

Events in Iran were soon to prove the power of Rockefeller and his British associates. In 1941, when Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran refused to join the so-called "allies" against Germany and expel its nationals from the country, Churchill flew into a rage and thereupon ordered an invasion of Iraq, in which he was joined by his Bolshevik Russian allies. By permitting Russian troops to enter Iran, Churchill opened the door to a Russian presence in the region, one of Stalin's longed-for goals. This was a shocking betrayal of the Iranian people and the West in general, and showed that the Rockefeller influence was international.

Such is the power of the petroleum companies, especially those controlled by the Rockefellers. The representatives of Standard Oil and Royal Dutch Shell oil companies advised Churchill to arrest and expel Reza Shah, which he promptly did, sending him first to Mauritius and then to South Africa, where he died in exile. Documents I examined in the British Museum in London show extensive intervention by the Rockefellers in Middle East politics.

In the British parliament, Churchill crowed:

"We (the oil companies), have just chased a dictator into exile and installed a constitutional government pledged to a whole catalog of serious-minded reforms."

What he did not say, was that the "constitutional government" was a puppet government selected by the oil companies, and its "whole catalog of reforms" was for the sole purpose of further entrenching American and British oil interests to get even bigger cuts of oil revenues.

But by 1951, the nationalistic mood sweeping the Middle East, which had begun in Egypt where Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser was bent on ousting the British from control of the country, spread to Iran as well. At this time, a genuine Iranian patriot, Dr. Mohamed Mossadegh, emerged to challenge Churchill's puppet government Mossadegh's main thrust was to break the power of the foreign oil companies. He judged the mood of the Iranian people as ripe for such a move.

This deeply alarmed the Rockefellers, who appealed to Britain for help. Mossadegh told Rockefeller and British Petroleum that he would not abide by their concession agreements. David Rockefeller is said to have developed a personal hatred of Mossadegh. Because of this, British Petroleum appealed to the British government to "put an end to the nuisance Mossadegh was creating."

Churchill, eager to comply with the demands of the Seven Sisters oil cartel (made up of the seven major British and American oil companies in the Middle East), asked the U.S. for help.

A talented, well-educated and astute politician from a wealthy back ground, Mossadegh's desire to help the Iranian people benefit from their national resource was genuine. In May of 1951, Dr. Mossadegh nationalized Iranian oil. An international advertising campaign was launched against Mossadegh, who was depicted as silly little man running around Teheran in his pajamas, immersed in emotion. This was far from the truth.

Led by the Rockefeller oil companies and backed by the U.S. State Department, an international boycott of Iranian oil was ordered. Iranian oil soon became unsoldable. The State Department declared its support for Churchill's puppet government in Teheran, which was installed when the Shah refused to join the allies in the war against Germany.

At the same time, the CIA and MI6 launched a joint operation against Mossadegh. It was code-named "Operation Ajax". What followed was a classic example of how governments are subverted and toppled through diplomacy by deception. Churchill, who had lost the election after the war ended, was returned to power by a thoroughly brainwashed British public.

He used his office to wage war against Dr. Mossadegh and the Iranian people through highwayman and pirate tactics as the following example shows:

The "Rose Marie," which sailed in international waters carrying Iranian oil, was not in breach of any international laws or treaties when it was ordered by Churchill to be intercepted by the Royal Air Force, and was forced to sail for Aden, a port under British control. The hijacking of a ship at sea had the full backing of the U.S. State Department, at the Rockefeller family suggestion.

My source in London whose job it is to monitor the oil industry, told me in 1970 that Churchill was restrained by his cabinet only with difficulty from ordering the RAF to bomb the "Rose Marie." A year passed, in which Iran suffered great financial losses. In 1953, Dr. Mossadegh wrote to President Dwight D. Eisenhower asking for help. He might as well have written to Rockefeller. Eisenhower, playing a game of nerves, did not respond.

The tactic had the desired effect of frightening Mossadegh. Finally, Eisenhower did reply, and in the classic style of diplomacy by deception, advised the Iranian leader to "abide by Iran's international obligations." Mossadegh continued to defy both the British and American governments. The oil companies sent a deputation to see Eisenhower to ask that immediate measures be taken to remove Mossadegh.

Kermit Roosevelt, who headed the CIA's covert operation against Mossadegh, worked tirelessly to establish forces inside Teheran that could be used to cause unrest. Large sums of money, said by my source to have amounted to $3 million, changed hands. In April of 1953, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, under intense pressure from the international bankers, tried to dismiss Dr. Mossadegh, but the attempt failed. The CIA and MI6-equipped army of agents, started to attack the military. Fearing assassination, the Shah fled, and Mossadegh was toppled in August 1953. The cost to American taxpayers was almost $10 million.

It is worth noting that even while Kermit Roosevelt was preparing the CIA's covert operation against Dr. Mossadegh in 1951, his Rockefeller partners were facing judicial proceedings in Washington that should have caused a halt to operations in Iran. The fact is that the all powerful petroleum industry knew it could beat back the challenge as it had done with all others. Justice Department proceedings were launched against Exxon, Texaco, Standard Gulf, Mobil and Socal. (No effort was made to go after Shell and BP).

Standard Oil immediately commissioned Dean Acheson to blunt the inquiry. Acheson proves a good example of how Rockefeller used important people in government and the private sector to override the government of Washington. Early in 1952, Acheson went on the attack. Citing the interests of the State Department in protecting America's foreign policy initiatives, thereby tacitly admitting that the major oil companies were running State's foreign policy, Acheson demanded that the investigation be shelved in the interest of not weakening "our good relations in the Near East"

Acheson failed to mention the uproar and instability being created at that very moment in Iran by Rockefeller, the CIA and MI6. The Attorney General responded with a sharply-worded attack on the oil monopolists, warning that petroleum should be freed,

"from the grip of the few; free enterprise can only be preserved by safeguarding it from excess of power, both government and private."

Hethen accused the cartel of acting in a way that endangered national security.

Rockefeller immediately ordered that damage control efforts put in place through his contacts inside the State and Justice Departments. (To this day, both are infested with CFR-Rockefeller agents.) Acheson publicly denounced the investigation as an action "by police dogs from the antitrust who want no truck with mammon and the unrighteous." His tone of voice was at all times belligerent and threatening. Acheson lined up support for Rockefeller from the Defense and Interior Departments, who vouched for the Seven Sisters in a most astounding manner.

"The companies (the major oil companies) play a vital role in supplying the free world's most essential commodity. American oil operations are for all practical purposes instruments of our foreign policy."

Dean Acheson then attempted to raise the bogeyman of Soviet interference in the Middle East, which was nothing more than a red herring to distract attention away from how the oil companies operated. Eventually, all criminal charges against the cartel were dropped

To show their utter contempt for U.S. law, the representatives of the major oil companies met in London in 1924 to avoid possible conspiracy charges at the request of Sir William Fraser. The letter that Fraser wrote to the top executives of Standard, Mobil, Texaco, BP.

The conspirators met again in London one month later, where they were joined by the CEO of the French company, Francias de Petroles. An agreement was reached to form a consortium that would control the Iranian oil. The new body was called a "consortium" as the use of the word "cartel" in America was deemed to be injudicious. Success was guaranteed, American executives told their foreign counterparts, because the State Department had given its blessing to the London meeting.

As far as the State Department was concerned, the Seven Sisters played a key role in the Middle East in fending off Communist penetration in an area of vital concern to the United States. Given the fact that in 1942, the very same oil companies backed Churchill in bringing Soviet Bolshevik troops to invade Iran, thereby giving Stalin his greatest opportunity to get a foothold in the Middle East, this was not exactly the truth.

Throughout the Justice Department proceedings, which began in October of 1951, State Department witnesses kept referring to the petroleum industry as "the so-called cartel." The State Department is densely populated with Rockefeller agents, perhaps more so than any of the other government institutions which David Rockefeller controls.

It remains my firm conviction to this day that a way has not yet been found to break the Rockefeller chains that bind the oil companies and this nation to the Council on Foreign Relations, which controls every facet of our foreign policy toward the oil nations of the world. It is a situation that we, the people, will have to confront, hopefully sooner rather than later.

In Washington, civil proceedings against the petroleum cartel fizzled out in the face of threats by the Council on Foreign Relations, which was backed by its puppet, President Eisenhower. Eisenhower said that the national security interests of the United States were being threatened by the proceedings. CFR puppet Eisenhower instructed his Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. to tell the court that the "anti-trust laws must be deemed secondary to the national security interests."

DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTION

By Dr. John Coleman

PART 2

While Kermit Roosevelt was going at it hammer and tongs in Teheran, Eisenhower and Dulles offered the court a compromise that would, in Eisenhower's words,

"protect the interests of the free world in the Near East as a major source of petroleum supplies."

No wonder that the Ayatollah Khomeini decades later, would call the United States "the great Satan." Khomeini was not referring to the people of the United States, but to their government.

Khomeini knew full well that the ordinary American was the victim of a conspiracy, that they were lied to, cheated, robbed and forced to sacrifice the blood of millions of their sons in foreign wars in which they had absolutely no reason to take part. Khomeini, an avid student of history, knew all about the Federal Reserve Act which he said "kept the people in the grip of slavery." When the U.S. embassy in Teheran was seized by revolutionary guards, several compromising documents fell into Khomeini's hands which clearly showed CIA involvement with British Petroleum, Standard and the other major oil companies.

Once the coup was declared a success, the Shah returned to his palace. Little did he know that two decades later he would suffer the same fate as Mossadegh, at the hands of the petroleum industry and its surrogate governments in Washington and London: the CIA and MI6. The Shah thought he could trust David Rockefeller, but like many others, it was not long before he realized that his trust was sadly misplaced.

Having access to the documents Mossadegh had dug up, which showed the extent of the plundering of Iran's national resource, the Shah quickly became disenchanted with London and Washington. Upon hearing the news of revolts in Mexico and Venezuela against Rockefeller and Shell, and coupled with the news about Saudi Arabia's "Golden Gimmick," the Shah began to pressure Rockefeller and the British for a larger share of the Iranian oil revenues which, at that time, amounted to only 30 percent of the total amount of oil revenues enjoyed by the oil companies.

Other countries had felt the lash of the petroleum industry as well. Mexico is a classic case of petroleum companies foreign policy making ability which transcended national boundaries and cost American consumers a huge fortune. Oil, it seemed, was the foundation of a new economic order, with undisputed power in the hands of a few people hardly known outside of the petroleum industry.

The "majors" have been referred to a number of times. This is shorthand for the major oil companies that form the most successful cartel in the history of commerce. Exxon (called Esso in Europe), Shell, BP, Gulf, Texaco, Mobil and Socol-Chevron. Together they form part of a major network of interlocking, interfacing banks, insurance companies and brokerage houses controlled by the Committee of 300, which are hardly known outside their circle.

The reality of the One World Government, or New World Order upper level government, brooks no interference from anyone, no matter who it might be -even powerful national governments — the rulers of nations great and small, corporations or private people. These supranational giants have expertise and accounting methods that have flummoxed the best brains in government, out of whose reach they remain. Through diplomacy by deception it seems the majors were able to induce governments to parcel out oil concessions to them, no matter who opposed it John D. Rockefeller would very much have approved this closed shop, run for the last 68 years by Exxon and Shell.

It is evident from the vastness and the complexity of their operations, most often carried out like clockwork and often involving activities in several countries at the one time, that the petroleum industry is one of the most powerful components that make up the economic operations of the Committee of 300.

In secret, the Seven Sisters club has plotted wars and decided amongst themselves which governments must bow to their depredations. When trouble arises, such as in the case of Dr. Mossadegh, and later President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, it is only a matter of calling upon the right airforce, navy, army, intelligence service to solve the problem and get rid of the "nuisance." It can be no more trouble than swatting a fly. The Seven Sisters became a government within a government, and nowhere is this more the case than with Rockefeller's Standard Oil (SOCO Exxon-Chevron.)

If one would like to know American and British foreign policies for Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq, one need only study the policies of BP, Exxon, Gulf Oil and ARAMCO. What is our policy in Angola? It is to protect Gulf Oil properties in that country, even though it means supporting an avowed Marxist. Who would have imagined that Gulf, Exxon, Chevron and ARAMCO have more say about American foreign affairs than members of Congress? Indeed, who would imagine that. Standard Oil would one day control the foreign policy of the United States and have the State Department acting as if it were run for its own economic benefit?

Is any other group so exalted, so favored with showers of tax concessions that run into billions of dollars per annum? I am often asked why it is that the American domestic petroleum industry, once so bustling and full of promise, went into a steep decline. The answer, in one word, is greed. For this reason, domestic production of oil had to be curtailed, in case the public should ever discover what was going on. This knowledge is much more difficult to obtain when dealing with foreign operations. What does the American public know about what goes on in the oil politics of Saudi Arabia? Even while making record profits, the petroleum industry demands and gets additional tax breaks, both open — and hidden — from public view.

Have the citizens of the United States benefited from the huge profits made by Exxon, Texaco, Chevron and Mobil (before it was sold?) The answer is no, because most of the profit was made "up-stream," that is, outside of the United States, which is where the profits were kept, while the U.S. consumer paid ever-rising prices for gas at the pumps.

Rockefeller's main area of concern became Saudi Arabia. The oil companies, by various stratagems, had entrenched themselves with King Ibn Saud. The king, worried that Israel would one day threaten his country and strengthen the Israeli lobby in Washington, needed something that would give him an edge. The State Department, at the urging of the Rockefellers, said it could only follow a pro-Saudi policy without upsetting Israel by using Exxon (ARAMCO) as a front This information was given to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was so sensitive that committee staffers were not even allowed to see it.

Rockefeller had in fact paid only a small fee, $500,000, to secure a major oil concession from Ibn Saud. After considerable diplomacy, a deception was worked out, a deception which cost American taxpayers at least $50 million in its first year. What came out of the discussions between Exxon and Ibn Saud is known as "the Golden Gimmick" in the inner sanctums of Rockefeller board rooms. The American oil companies agreed to pay a subsidy to the Saudi ruler of not less that $50 million a year, based on the amount of Saudi oil pumped. The State Department would then allow the American companies to declare such subsidy payment as "foreign income tax," which Rockefeller, for example, could deduct from Exxon's U.S. taxes.

With production of cheap Saudi oil soaring, so did the subsidy payments soar. This is one of the greatest scams perpetrated upon the American public. The bottom line of the plan was that huge foreign aid payments were made annually to the Saudis under the guise of "subsidies." When the Israeli government uncovered the scheme, it too, demanded "subsidies" which today amount to $13 billion per annum — all at the expense of American taxpayers.

Since the American consumer actually helps pay for cheaper imported crude oil than domestic crude oil, shouldn't we benefit from this arrangement through cheaper gasoline prices at the pumps? After all, Saudi oil was so cheap, and in view of the production subsidies, wouldn't this translate into lower gasoline prices at the pumps? Does the American consumer derive the slightest benefit from footing this huge bill? No way. Apart from geopolitical considerations, "the majors" are also guilty of price fixing. The cheap Arab oil for instance, was fixed at the higher domestic crude oil price when imported into the United States by a subterfuge known as "phantom freight rates."

According to hard evidence presented to the Multi-national Hearings in 1975, the major oil companies, led by Rockefeller companies, made 70 percent of their profits abroad, profits which could not be taxed at the time. With the bulk of their profits coming from "up stream," the petroleum industry was not about to make a major investment in the domestic oil industry. As a consequence, the domestic oil industry began to decline. Why spend money on the exploration and exploitation of domestic oil when it was theirs for the asking in Saudi Arabia — at a cheaper price than the local product and at a far bigger profit?

The unsuspecting American consumer was and is being shafted, without knowing it. According to secret economic data, which a contact of mine who is still in the economic intelligence monitoring business showed me, gas at the pumps in America, given all local, state and federal taxes piled on the price, should not have cost the consumer more than 35 cents per gallon by the end of 1991. Yet, we know that prices at the pumps were three to five times greater without any justification for such excessively high prices.

The immorality of this gross deception is that had the big oil companies, and again I must emphasize the leadership of the Rockefellers in this, not been so greedy, they could have produced domestic oil which would have made our gasoline prices the cheapest in the world. In my opinion, the manner in which this diplomatic deception was set up between the State Department and Saudi Arabia, makes the State Department a partner to a criminal enterprise. For, in order not to have a falling-out with Israel and at the same time keep the Saudis happy, the American consumer was loaded with a huge tax burden, from which this country derived absolutely no benefit. Isn't that tantamount to the involuntary servitude forbidden by the U.S. Constitution?

The rulers of Saudi Arabia then demanded that fixed prices be posted by the oil companies (ARAMCO), meaning that the country would not surfer a decline in income if prices for oil dropped. When they heard of the arrangement, Iran and Iraq demanded and received the same fixed pricing agreement The bottom line here is that the oil companies led by the Rockefeller companies, paid taxes on an artificially higher price, not the real market price, which was offset by the lower taxes they paid in the United States — a major benefit not enjoyed by any other industry in America.

This made it possible for Exxon and Mobil (and all the ARAMCO companies) to pay an average tax rate of 5 percent, notwithstanding the huge profits they were making. Not only were the oil companies gouging the American consumer, and still are, but they are also making and carrying out U.S. foreign policy to the extreme detriment of the American people. These arrangements and actions place the petroleum industry above the law, giving it a position from where the companies can, and do, dictate foreign policy to the elected government, free of any control by our representatives in Washington.

The policies of the petroleum companies cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars in additional taxation and billions of dollars in excess profits at the pumps. The petroleum industry, and, in particular, Exxon, has no fear of the U.S. government Thanks to the control exercised by the permanent upper-level parallel secret government of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Rockefeller is untouchable. That enabled ARAMCO to sell oil to the French Navy at $0.95 per barrel, while at the same time the U.S. Navy was charged $1.23 per barrel.

One of the few in the Senate who dared tackle the awesome power of the Rockefellers was Sen. Brewster. He disclosed some of the "slippery conduct" of the petroleum industry during hearings in 1948, accusing the industry of bad faith "with an avaricious desire for enormous profits while at the same time constantly seeking the cloak of United States protection and assistance to preserve their vast concessions,". The Rockefellers drafted a memo signed by the bigger

U.S. oil companies, the gist of which was that they did not owe "any special obligation to the United States." Rockefeller's blatant internationalism was finally flaunted for all to see.

As an example of the foregoing, M.J. Eaton in an article published by "The Oil Industry" stated:

"The oil industry is at present confronted with the question of government control."

When the U.S. government invited the American Petroleum Institute to name three members to a committee it had set up to consider conservation legislation, API's president E.W. Clarke said:

"We cannot undertake to pass upon, still less accede to, any suggestion that the Federal government may directly regulate the production of crude oil in several states."

The API argued that the Federal government did not have authority to control oil companies under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. On May 27,1927, the API said the government could not tell the industry what to do—even where the common defense and the general welfare of the nation was concerned.

One of the best and most far-reaching exposes of the petroleum industry is a 400-page report entitled "The International Petroleum Cartel." This great report has disappeared from view, and it is my understanding that Rockefeller and the CFR bought up every avail able copy shortly after it was published, and prevented any more copies of the report from being printed.

Inspired by the late Sen. John Sparkman and put together by Professor M. Blair, the history of the petroleum cartel was traced back to a conspiracy that took place at Achnacarry Castle, a remote fishing preserve in Scotland. Sparkman pulled no punches in a slashing attack on Rockefeller's oil empire.

Professor Blair meticulously built up a case which proved that the major oil companies had entered into a conspiracy to achieve the following goals:

To control all oil production in foreign countries in so far as production, sale and distribution of oil was concerned.

To strictly control all technology and patents related to oil production and refining.

To share pipelines and tankers between the Seven Sisters.

To act jointly to maintain artificially high prices for oil and gasoline.

Professor Blair charged that particularly ARAMCO had been guilty of keeping oil prices at a high level when it was getting Saudi oil at incredibly low prices. In response to Sparkman's charges, the Justice Department began its own investigation in 1951, which was dealt with earlier herein.

Nothing has changed. The Gulf War is a good example of "business as usual." The occupation of Somalia also has oil overtones. Thanks to our newest spy satellite, the La Crosse Imager which can relay images of what lies underground, very substantial oil and gas reserves were detected in Somalia about 3 years ago. The find was kept absolutely secret This led to the U.S. mission ostensibly to feed starving Somali children shown on television night after night for 3 months.

A "starving children" rescue mission was staged by the Bush administration as a means of providing protection for Aramco, Phillips, Conoco, Cohoco and British Petroleum drilling operations coming under threat from Somali leaders who were becoming aware that they were about to be plundered.

The American operation had little to do with feeding starving children. Why didn't the U.S. mount a similar "rescue" mission in Ethiopia, where starvation is a real problem? Obviously, the answer is that Ethiopia does not have any known oil reserves. However, securing the port of Berbera is the chief goal of U.S. forces. There is great discord in Russia over oil. The Kurds will have to suffer again and again over Mosul oil.

Rockefeller and BP are still the greedy oil grabbers they always were.

Part 5 : Israel In Focus

Perhaps more than any other country in the Middle East, with the exception of what is now called Saudi Arabia, diplomacy by deception was seen at its height during the formative years of the State of Israel. As I have done throughout this book, I have made every effort to be absolutely objective in dealing with the background to the formation of Israel, given the propensity of the majority to regard almost anything said about the country as "anti-semitic."

This account of how the State of Israel came into being does not take religious matters into consideration, but is based purely and simply on political, geographical, geopolitical and economic factors. It is difficult to arrive at a starting point when dealing with the history of any country, but after almost fifteen years of research, I have pinned down Oct. 31,1914 as the beginning of events that led to the founding of Israel.

The history of one country cannot be separated from that of its neighbors, and this applies especially when it comes to an historical account of Israel. Lord Horatio Kitchener, fresh from his success in putting an end to the sovereign independent Boer Republics in South Africa, was turned loose on the Middle East by the Committee of 300 acting through the British Foreign Office.

The British government had been scheming and plotting against the Turkish Ottoman Empire since 1899, and by 1914, was ready to make its final move to bring down the 400-year old dynasty. The Committee of 300 plan was to involve Arabs through false promises, and use Arabian forces to do Britain's dirty work, as we saw in the chapter which showed how Col. Thomas Lawrence was used for this purpose.

The first step in this direction was a meeting between Hussein, the grand Sherif of Mecca, bastion of the Hashemites, and Lord Kitchener. Hussein was offered a guarantee of independence for his assistance against the Turks. Full negotiations began in July of 1915. At these meetings, the British government repeatedly assured Sherif Hussein that Jewish immigration to Palestine would never be allowed, which, as I detailed in earlier chapters, was the only thing that would guarantee Hussein's participation.

Even before the negotiations for complete independence for Mecca got under way, emissaries of the British government met secretly with members of the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi families to discuss British cooperation in helping these two families subjugate the city-states of Arabia.

The strategy was to get Hussein and his military forces to help drive the Turks out of Egypt, Palestine, Jordan and Arabia by promising Hussein and the leaders of Arabia's city-states that Jewish immigration into Palestine would not be permitted. The second part of the strategy called for the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi forces (armed, trained and financed by Britain) to bring all independent city-states in Arabia under their control while the city-state's leaders alongside Hussein were busy fighting Britain's war against the Turks.

The overall plan, proposed by Lord Kitchener, was discussed by the British government on July 24,1914. But it was not until Oct. 24,1914 that the British government gave its answer. The Arab territories, with certain exceptions in Syria, "in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to her ally, France," would be respected. On Jan. 30, 1916, Britain accepted Hussein's proposals, which, in essence were that in return for his help, Hussein would be declared king of Hijaz and would rule the Arab people.

On June 27,1916, Hussein proclaimed the establishment of the Arab State, and was proclaimed king of the Hijaz on October 29. On Nov. 6,1916, Britain, France and Russia recognized Hussein as the head of Arab peoples and the king of Hijaz. Were the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi families disturbed by the contradiction in the terms of their agreement with Great Britain? Apparently not, for the simple reason that they were informed in advance of these developments, and knew that they were no more than a needed deception to be played out on Hussein.

The years 1915 and 1917 saw the British government meeting with leaders of the World Zionist Congress to determine how best to implement its long-planned Jewish immigration into Palestine. An agreement was reached to send MI6 agents to Arabia to help train the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi armies.

Britain, France and Russia held a secret meeting on April 26, 1916, agreeing that Palestine would be placed under international administration. None of the Arabs were informed, although British Foreign Office documents infer that leaders of the World Zionist Congress were notified in advance of the meeting and advised on its purpose.

Previously, in March of 1915, France and Britain had also promised Constantinople to the Russians. In return, Russia agreed that it would recognize the independence of Arab states. Britain would control Haifa. France would get Syria. Russia would get Armenia and Kurdistan (oil was not yet a factor). What is amazing, is that not once were the inhabitants of these lands ever informed. How the governments could trade in lands that did not belong to them speaks to the tremendous power exercised by secret societies under the control of the Committee of 300.

This perpetual agreement, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, was concluded between Britain and France on May 9, 1916. All zones of influence in the Middle East were specifically spelled out, even where Arab states were ostensibly recognized as "independent." The means of control here was through secret societies particularly through a planned Freemason Lodge in Salonika.

Unaware of what had been arranged, M16 operative Col. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") led the Arab forces of Sherif Hussein to one spectacular victory after another, eventually capturing the key Hijaz rail line, driving the Turks into full retreat The key element in persuading the Arabs to attack the Turks (both were Islamic nations) was the British statement that the Ottoman empire had befriended the Jews expelled from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, and had made Constantinople a haven for Jews. This, the British negotiators (MI6 agents) told Hussein, guaranteed that the rulers in Constantinople

Affectionately known as "Orrenz" by his Arab soldiers, looked up to and idolized, it was impossible for Col. Lawrence to accept the gross betrayal of Hussein and his army. When it became apparent that Jews were being allowed into Palestine in large numbers, Lawrence was subsequently murdered to stop him from disclosing the machinations of the British government British War Office records show that Lawrence received personal guarantees from Gen. Edmund Allenby, commander of British forces in the Middle East that Jewish immigration to Palestine would not be allowed under any circumstances.

Let us return now to the Balfour Declaration, a remarkable document in the sense that it was neither drafted nor signed by British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, but by Lord Rothschild, as head of the British branch of the World Zionist Federation. Britain promised land in Palestine to Jews that really belonged to the Arabs, in breach of the pledge to Sherif Hussein and solemn promises made to Col. Lawrence by Gen. Allenby.

What is more striking is that although Lord Rothschild was not a member of the British government, his proposals for Palestine were accepted by the League of Nations on April 25, 1920 as an official British government document. The League of Nations accepted the Balfour Declaration and gave a mandate to Britain to administer Palestine and Transjordan. The only alteration made was that a Jewish national home would not be established in Transjordan, which, in any case, the Zionists did not want.

Once the Turks were defeated by Arab forces under Lawrence's command, and later the Arabs under Hussein, were defeated by the British-trained and equipped Abdul Aziz armies, the way was clear for Jewish immigration to Palestine to begin in earnest. Arrangements were confirmed at a conference of allied prime ministers held at San Remo, Italy on April 18, 1920. No Arab delegates were invited. In May of 1921, serious anti-Jewish rioting broke out in Palestine over the sudden influx of Jewish immigrants and the large number of Jewish settlements springing up.

Sir Herbert Samuel, British high commissioner for Palestine, at tempted to appoint a legislative council, but the Arabs would have no part of it Unrest continued from 1921, and a dispute at the Wailing Wall in 1929 erupted and rapidly escalated into large scale attacks on Jews, 50 of whom were killed.

A British government report issued in March of 1931 cited the cause of the rioting as "Arab hatred of Jews, and the disappointment of the Arab hopes for independence." The British government then issued a decree restricting Jewish immigration, which led to a Jewish strike that caused wide disruption in Palestine.

British foreign office documents indicate that in June of 1931, "complaints were filed with the League of Nations Commission on Mandates, which blamed the problems on an inadequate security force." Although the papers did not indicate who originated the complaints, notations in the margins of these papers point to Lord Rothschild.

As a result of League of Nations pressure, the British government appointed Sir John Hope-Simpson to track and report on the unrest in Palestine. His report, known as The Passfield White Paper was presented to Parliament in 1930. The White Paper stressed the plight of the landless Arabs and their increasing desire to own land. It strongly advocated that Jews be forbidden to acquire more land if any Arabs were landless, and that Jewish immigration be stopped for as long as any Arabs were unemployed.

The confidence of the Jews badly shaken, the World Zionist Congress went on the offensive and forced a debate in Parliament on the Passfield paper. The "London Times" in Nov. of 1930 said debates in Parliament were "heated and acrimonious." After two years of intense pressure on the British government, the Zionist World Federation was able to obtain a relaxation of restrictions on the number of Jews allowed into Palestine.

In 1933, Sir Arthur Wauchope, British high commissioner, rejected Arab demands that the sale of Arab land to Jews be declared illegal, and that Jewish immigration be halted. By now, talk of war in Europe was in the air, alongside daily reports of Jews being persecuted in Germany. This worked against the Arabs. The Zionists organized large-scale protests and riots against restricted immigration, and newspapers in London reported unfavorably on their activities. This, however, did little to further the Palestinian people's cause.

It became clear in 1935, why Britain had demanded control of Haifa with the opening of the Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline. In April of 1936, the Arab High Committee united Arab opposition to the Jews in Palestine, and near civil war erupted. The British government responded with more troops and appointed a commission to investigate the causes of the unrest.

The Arabs boycotted the commission,

"because the British already know what the problem is but hide behind commissions and do nothing to stop the causes." 

The Peel Commission took evidence in Palestine in 1936, and just before leaving for London in January 1937, heard from an Arab delegation which had previously boycotted commission meetings. On July 8,1937, the Peel Commission Report was made public. It dealt a devastating blow to Jewish aspirations, flatly stating that Jews and Arabs could not live together, and recommended that Palestine be split into three states:

• A Jewish state to occupy about one third of the land. In it, would reside 200,000 Arabs, with the land being held by Arabs. 

• A British mandated territory comprising a strip of land from Jaffa along the railway to Jerusalem. It would include Bethlehem and Jerusalem. 

• The remainder of the land to be an Arab state united with Trans Jordan.

The Peel Commission report was adopted by the World Zionist Federation, but it was denounced by the Arab world and several European countries, especially France. The Peel Commission recommendations were adopted by the League of Nations on August 23, 1937.

The assassination of High Commissioner Yelland Andrew on August 2, 1937 was attributed to the Zionists, which the Palestinians and Arabs said was arranged to engender hatred among the British people for the Arabs. By 1937, pitched battles between Jews and Arabs took on the semblance of all-out war.

This led to a postponement of the Peel Commission recommendations and the appointment of a new commission under Sir John Woodhead. It is important to know that the diplomacy by deception tactics of the British government were leading up to one objective, the total abandonment of the Arab cause in Palestine. Secret MI6 documents of the period were not disclosed even to the British parliament They suggested that the "Palestinian problem" was impossible to solve, and gave suggestions for dissembling to prevent further Arab unrest When the Arab leaders spoke of the problem as being a "Zionist problem", Lord Rothschild issued orders to the British press that the problem was always to be expressed as a "Palestinian problem."

A horrible massacre of 20 Jews occurred at Tiberias and Arab forces took Bethlehem and the old city of Jerusalem; the two cities only being recaptured by British troops with considerable difficulty. British foreign office documents, while not clearly expressing an opinion, nevertheless seemed to indicate that attacks on the cities and towns, and the murder of Jews was the work of agent-provocateurs who did not wish to see any agreement reached that would accommodate further Jewish immigration.

The Woodhead Commission report, expressing the view that partitioning Palestine was not a practical solution, was released in Nov. 1938. It called for an immediate conference of Arabs and Jews. Talks commenced in London in February 1939, but a stalemate arose that was not resolved and the meeting broke up one month later without any results being achieved.

Then, on May 17,1939, the British government announced a new plan which provided for an independent Palestine state by 1949. It would have a treaty relationship with Great Britain; Arabs and Jews were to share in the government "in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded," the report said.

The plan was for Jewish immigration to be halted for five years unless the Arabs agreed to let it continue, but, in any case, by 1949, 75,000 Jews were to be allowed enter the country. The aim of the British government was to arrange matters in such a way that Jews would make up about one-third of the population. The transfer of Arab land to Jews was to be prohibited.

The plan was approved by the British Parliament, but violently denounced by the World Zionist Congress and American Jewish leaders. The Palestinians also rejected the plan, and fighting between Jews and Arabs erupted across the land. But Palestine took a back seat a few months later when Britain declared war on Germany and was promptly backed by the World Zionist Congress.

Once Britain declared war on Germany, a flood of Jewish refugees from Europe went to Palestine, and in May of 1942, a conference of American Zionists adopted the Biltmore Program, which repudiated the modified Woodhead plan which called for an independent Palestine, demanding in its place a Jewish state, with a Jewish army, and a distinctly Jewish identity.

Three years later, the World Zionist Congress demanded that one million Jews be admitted to Palestine as refugees from war-torn Europe. Egypt and Syria warned President Truman in October of 1945 that war would follow attempts to create a Jewish state in Palestine. By July 1946, Zionist pressure was at a fever pitch, culminating in a bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem that took 91 lives. The United Nations report stated that the bombing was the work of Irgun terrorists. The Arabs accused the United States and Britain of arming and training both the Irgun and Haganah as the forerunner to establishing an Israeli army.

The British abandoned Palestine in February of 1947 and handed it over to United Nations, which was their way of admitting that they had betrayed Lawrence and the Arabs, and finally reneging on their responsibilities toward Palestine. In so doing, they abandoned their own agreement to hold the line until 1949. The U. N. General Assembly voted to partition Palestine on November 29,1946. There was to be a Jewish and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under U.N. trusteeship. The vote was approved by the World Zionist Congress but rejected by the Arab states and Palestine.

The Arab League Council announced in December of 1947 that it would stop the partition of the country by force, and began attacking Jewish communities all across Palestine. 1948 saw the open rise to power of the MI6-trained and American armed Irgun and Haganah counterforce. Terror reigned and hundreds of thousands of Arabs left their lands. In the final act of betrayal and the abdication of its responsibilities toward the Arabs, the last of the 30,000 British troops were withdrawn.

In defiance of U.N. resolutions, on May 14,1948, Zionist leader David Ben Gurion announced a provisional Jewish government for the State of Israel. The United Nations, unwilling or unable to stop Ben Gurion, let the declaration stand. On May 16, the United States and Russia both recognized the newly formed Ben Gurion government, brushing aside cries of betrayal emanating from Palestinians, all the Arab nations and at least eight European governments.

Later in the same month, the Arab League declared war against the newly created state of Israel. The Israeli forces, illegally equipped and armed not by the British, but by U.S. military supplies from stockpiles for American forces in Europe, gained the upper hand. Count Folke Bernadotte, a U.N. mediator was assassinated by Irgun terrorists on Sept. 17 while trying to bring about a truce. This eventually led to a U.N. brokered armistice and a temporary halt to hostilities. Bernadotte was accused of favoring the Arab cause, although the record shows he tried to be neutral.

Israel joined the United Nations in May of 1949, and was recognized by the U.S., Britain, the USSR and France. Arab countries protested to the United Nations and blamed Britain, France and the U.S. for helping Israel open a pipeline from the Sea of Galilee to the Negev Desert which made possible extensive irrigation for Jewish settlements and agriculture at the cost of unilateral tapping into the waters of the River Jordan at the expense of the Arab population. The Arabs were not consulted about this extensive project "to make the desert bloom" and considered it a breach of a May, 1939 agreement that called for administering the country "in such a way as to ensure that the interests of each community are safeguarded."

On May 9,1956, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a member of one of the top 13 families of the American Illuminati, went before Congress to practice his own diplomacy by deception, explaining that the U.S. would not supply Israel with arms because we wanted to avoid a U.S. USSR war by proxy. The fact that Israel was already fully armed and equipped by the U.S. was not brought out. What the Dulles declaration accomplished provided a reason for the USSR to halt arms supplies to the Arab nations on the basis of the U.S. position of "neutrality." At that point, there was a glaring imbalance of arms in favor of Israel.

Another point worth noting in the game of deception was that in spite of its alleged friendship with the Arab countries, in response to a U.S. initiative in 1956, the Soviet Union signed a secret deal which called for stepping up oil supplies to Israel, fearing that an Arab oil embargo might hurt Israel's defense capabilities.

Dulles, in another change of face, told members of Congress to get around restrictions by offering aid to any Middle Eastern nation desiring it. On March 9,1957, a joint congressional resolution empowered the president to use up to $200 million for economic and military assistance to any Middle Eastern nation desiring it. According to the Eisenhower Doctrine, this was supposed to "assure vital U.S. interest in the integrity and independence of all Middle East countries."

President Eisenhower embarked on what was billed as "a goodwill tour" in December of 1959, which took in several Arab countries, including Tunisia and Morocco. Both of these Arab countries later tried to tone down Arab resistance to Israel, efforts which, however, during the next 10 years, the arms build-up of both the Arabs and the Israelis continued to grow until war broke out again. Israeli forces took Jerusalem and refused to return the city to U.N. control in spite of several Security Council resolutions calling upon the government of Israel to comply.

In a transparent move on June 10,1967, the Soviet Union announced it was breaking off diplomatic relations with Israel although it did not cancel a 1956 agreement made which stepped up oil supplies to Israel. As the two main French newspapers pointed out, had the USSR been genuine in its opposition to Israel, it could have vetoed Israel's membership in the United Nations, but it did not.

By breaking off diplomatic relations with Israel, the Soviets opened the way for the U.S. to supply Israel with 50 F-4 Phantom jet fighters. This so angered President Charles De Gaulle, that he signed a decree forbidding any further financial or military assistance to Israel by France. The decree was rigidly enforced for about two years.

The U.N. Security Council met on July 3,1969 and censured in the strongest terms Israel's continued occupation of Jerusalem and deplored Israel's failure to respect previous resolutions which demanded that Israel withdraw from the city. According to a former general assembly member from Pakistan,

"the Israeli delegation was not at all perturbed, having met earlier that day with the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who gave the Israeli delegates absolute assurances that the resolution 'has no teeth,'" and that "any active attempt to punish Israel will be blocked by the United States and the Security Council." 

But when the Security Council met, the United States joined in the condemnation of Israel. Of such stuff is diplomacy by deception made.

In closing this chapter, it seems fitting to give a summary of the diplomatic treachery of Britain toward its Arab ally, Sherif Hussein of Mecca:

• On Nov. 2,1921, Ibn Saud captured Hali, ending the ancient dynasty of the Rashids.

• In July, 1922, Ibn Saud overran Jauf and ended the ancient Shalan dynasty.

• On Aug. 24,1924, the Wahabis and Ibn Saud attacked Taif, in the Hijaz, and overran it on Sept. 5.

• On Oct. 131924, Ibn Saud took Mecca. Sherif Hussein and his son, Ali, were forced to flee. This is how Saudi Arabia usurped the holy city, an act which remains, to this day, deeply resented by millions of Moslems in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere. Without British help, Ibn Saud would not have been able to subdue Mecca. The British oligarchical structure had long expressed hatred of the prophet Muhammad, and no doubt took great satisfaction in the Saudi victory.

• Between January and June of 1925, the Wahabis laid siege to the city-state of Jiddah.

• On Dec. 5, 1925, Medina surrendered to Ibn Saud, and on Dec. 19, Sherif Ali, son of Hussein, was forced to abdicate.

• On Jan. 8,1926, Ibn Saud was proclaimed King of the Hijaz and Sultan of Nejd.

• On May 20,1927, the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi families, represented by Ibn Saud, signed a treaty with Great Britain, which recognized the complete independence of all territories held by the two families, and allowed them to become known as Saudi Arabia.

Without the help of the Arab nation-states under Hussein, and without the conquest of Arabian city-states by the Wahabi and Abdul Aziz families, the Turks would not have been driven out of Egypt and Palestine, and Jewish immigration into that country would have been strictly curtailed or possibly halted altogether. As President Hafez el Assad of Syria said in 1973, "the British planted a Zionist dagger in the heart of the Arab nations."

It is said by friends of the late Col. Lawrence that his ghost walks the corridors of Whitehall, unable to find peace because of the manner in which diplomacy by deception succeeded in undercutting his firm promise to the Arab armies of Sherif Hussein, and because of his culpability in accepting Allenby's and Whitehall's false promises that Jewish immigration to Palestine would not be permitted.

Part 6 : Tavistock and "Operation Research" - Undeclared War

The founder for the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, John Rawlings Reese, was to perfect a system that would subvert and then control the thinking of human beings so that they could be channeled in any direction so desired by the Committee of 300, also known as the Olympians. It must be said that to do this, one must introduce an automated mentality into the bulk of the targeted population. This is an objective with very far-reaching implications nationally and internationally.

The end result of Reese's objectives were and remain, control of all human life; its destruction when deemed desirable, whether it be through mass genocide or mass slavery. We are witnessing both today. One is the Global 2000 genocidal plan, which calls for the deaths of more of 500 million people by the year 2010; the other is slavery by an economic means. Both systems are fully operational and working side-by-side in today's America.

Reese began his Tavistock experiments in 1921; it soon became clear to him that his system could be applied both domestically and militarily. Reese said that the solution to the problems he foresaw needed a ruthless approach, without concern for religious or moral values. He later added another area to his list that of nationalism.

Reese is known to have studied the work of the Nine Unkown Men, as referred to in 1860 by the French writer Jacolliot. Among Jacolliot's remarks were that the Nine Unknown Men knew about the liberation of energy, sterilization by radiation, propaganda and psychological warfare, all of which were absolutely unheard of in that century. Jacolliot said that the technique of psychological warfare was "the

When it became obvious that British politicians were bent on solving the country's economic problems by means of another war, Reese was given 80,000 British Army recruits to use as guinea pigs. Operation Research was the name given to his project, and basically, it was designed to develop a methodology (logistics) in military management that would make the best use of limited military resources sea, air and land defense systems against Britain's foreign enemies.

Thus, the original program was a military-management one, but by 1946, Reese had developed Operation Research to the point that it could be applied as a civilian management program. Reese had "arrived," insofar as social engineering was concerned, but his work is concealed in top secret files at Tavistock. Technically, the Reese Tavistock manual, of which I have a copy, is a full declaration of war against the civilian population of any targeted country. Reese said that it had to be understood that "whenever any government, groups, persons in positions of power" use his methods without the consent of the people, it is understood by these governments or groups of people that conquest is the motive, and that domestic warfare exists between them and the public.

Reese discovered that with social engineering comes the greater need for information that can be rapidly collected and correlated. One of the earlier statements attributed to Reese was the necessity to stay ahead of society and predict its moves by engineering situations. A big breakthrough for Reese and his social tinkerers came with the discovery of linear programming by George B. Danzig in 1947. This came at a time when Reese was engaged in a war with the American nation, a war which is still ongoing, and which was greatly facilitated by the invention of the transistor by Bardeen, Brittain and Shockley in 1948.

Enter the Rockefellers, who gave a huge grant to Tavistock to enable Reese to press ahead with a study of the American economy, using Operation Research methods. Simultaneously, the Rockefeller Foundation gave Harvard University a four-year grant to create its own American economy model. The year was 1949, and Harvard pressed ahead with its own economic model, based on Tavistock's.

The only stipulation Reese made as a condition of his cooperation with Harvard, was that Tavistock methods be followed throughout. These were based upon the Prudential Assurance Bombing Survey Study, which led to saturation bombing of German worker housing as a means of bringing about the capitulation of the German war machine. These methods were now ready to be applied in a civilian context.

Reese made a detailed study of America's entry into WWI, which he deemed to be the beginning of the 20th century. Reese realized that for America to be seduced away from so-called "isolationism," American thinking would have to be drastically changed. Woodrow Wilson had dragged America into European affairs in 1916 with corruption and corrupting policies. Wilson sent American forces to fight on Europe's battlefields, in spite of the warnings issued by the Founding Fathers, to stay out of foreign entanglements. The Committee of 300, was determined to keep the United States entangled in European and indeed world affairs forever after.

Wilson did not change Europe, but Europe changed America. The banishing of power politics, which is what Wilson thought he could do, was not possible, because power is politics and politics is economic power. This has been so since the earliest recorded history of politics: those of the city-states of the Sumer and Akkad of 5,000 years ago, right down to Hitler and the USSR. Economics is only an extension of a natural energy system, but that system, the elitists have always said, belongs under their control.

In order for an economy to be under the control of elite body, it has to be an economy that is predictable and totally manipulatable. This is what the Harvard model set out to accomplish, backed by the social dynamics of the Reese Operation Research. Reese had discovered that to achieve total predictability in population groups, the elements of society had to be brought under control under a yoke of slavery, and dispossessed of the means of discovering their predicament, so that not knowing how to unite or a joint defense, they would not know where to turn to for help.

That Tavistock methodology is at work can be found everywhere in the United States. People, not knowing where to turn to understand the predicament they find themselves in, turn to the worst place of all for supposed help: the government. The Harvard Economic Research Project, which began in 1948, embodied all the Reese principles, which, in turn, came out of the Prudential Bombing Survey and Operations Research. By joining forces, the elite felt that a means of controlling a nation's economy and the population was now available with the coming of the computer age — both a blessing and a terrible curse for mankind.

All science is only a means to an end, and man is knowledge (information), which ends in control. Who the beneficiaries of that control are was decided by the Committee of 300 and its antecedents 300 years ago. The war waged against the American people by Tavistock is now 47 years old and shows no signs of letting up. As energy is the key to all life on this planet, through diplomacy by deception and outright strong-arm methods, the Committee has gained control of most energy resources.

The Committee, by deception and dissembling, has also gained control of social energy, which is expressed in economic terms. Provided that the ordinary citizen could be kept ignorant of the real economic methods of bookkeeping, then the citizens would be doomed to lead a life of economic slavery. This is what has happened. We, the people, gave our consent to the economic controllers of our lives and became slaves of the elite. As Reese once said, people who will not use their intelligence have no better rights than dumb animals who have no intelligence at all. Economic slavery is essential if good order is to be maintained, and the ruling class may enjoy the fruits produced by slave labor.

Reese and his team of social scientists and social engineers went to work on the American public by learning first, then understanding, and then attacking, the social energy (economics) and the mental and physical weaknesses of the nation. Earlier, I said that the computer is both a blessing and a curse for mankind. On the positive side, there are many emerging economists who, through the use of computers, are starting to wake up to the fact that the Harvard model is a blueprint for economic slavery.

If this new breed of economic programmers can get its message out to the American people fast enough, the New World Order (of slavery) can still be stopped. This is where diplomacy by deception plays such a vast role in subverting through the media, education and influencing the way we think by distracting us with issues of absolutely no importance, while the truly important issues are glossed over. In a major policy study meeting ordered by the Committee of 300 in 1954, it was made clear to economic experts, high-ranking government officials, bankers, and leaders of commerce and industry, that the war against the American people was to be stepped up.

Robert McNamara was one of those who said that, because peace and good order was being threatened by an out-of-control population, the wealth of the nation had to be moved away from the undisciplined masses and into the control of the self-disciplined few.

McNamara savagely attacked overpopulation, which he said threatened to change the world in which we live and make it ungovernable:

"We can begin with the most critical problems of population growth. As I have pointed out elsewhere, short of nuclear war itself, it is the gravest issue that the world faces in the decades ahead. If current trends continue, the world as a whole will not reach replacement level fertility - in effect an average of two children per family - until about the year 2020. That means that the world's population would finally stabilize at about 10 billion, compared with today's 4.3 billion.

"We call it stabilized, but what kind of stability would be possible? Can we assume that the levels of poverty, hunger, stress, crowding and frustration that such a situation could cause in the developing nations which by then would contain 9 out of 10 human beings on earth would be likely to assure social stability? Or, for that matter, military stability?

"It is not a world that any of us would want to live in. Is such a world inevitable? It is not but there are only two possible ways in which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birthrate must come down more quickly, or the current death rates must go up. There is no other way.

"There are, of course, many ways in which the death rates can go up. In a thermonuclear age, war can accomplish it very quickly and decisively. Famine and disease are nature's ancient checks on population growth, and neither one has disappeared from the scene." 

In 1979 McNamara repeated his message to the leading bankers from around the world, and Thomas Enders, a high-ranking State Department official, made the following statement:

"There is a single theme behind all of our work. We must reduce population growth. Either they do it our way, through nice, clean methods, or they will get the kind of a mess that we have in El Salvador, or Iran, or Beirut. Once population growth is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. Civil war can help things, but it would have to be greatly expanded. To reduce population quickly, you have to pull all males into the fighting and kill significant numbers of fertile, child-bearing-age females." 

The solution to the problem of a world in which the elite would not want to live is mass genocide. The Club of Rome was ordered to produce a blueprint that would wipe out 500 million of excess population. The plan was called Global 2000, and it was activated by spreading the AIDS virus throughout Africa and Brazil. Global 2000 was officially accepted as U.S. policy by President James Carter.

The conference members agreed that the,

"low-class element of society must be brought under total control, trained and assigned to duties at an early age, which can be accomplished by the quality of education, which must be the poorest of the poor. The lower-classes must be trained to accept their position, long before they have an opportunity to query it." 

"Technically, children must be 'orphaned' in day care centers under government control. With such an initial handicap, the lower-classes will have little hope of upward mobility away from their assigned positions in life. The form of slavery we have in mind is essential for good social order, peace and tranquility.

"We have the resources to attack the vitality, options and mobility of the individuals in society by knowing through our social scientist, understanding and manipulating and attacking their sources of social energy (income), and therefore, their physical, mental and emotional strengths and weaknesses. The general public refuses to improve its own mentality. It has become a herd of proliferating barbarians, and a blight on the face of the earth.

"By measuring the economic habits by which the sheep try to run from their problems and escape from reality via the medium of 'entertainment', it is absolutely possible, applying Operation Research methods, to predict the probable combination shocks (created events) which are necessary to bring about complete control and subjugation of the population by subverting the economy. The strategy includes the use of amplifiers (advertising), and when we speak on television in the manner that a ten year old can relate to, then because of the suggestions made, that person will purchase that production impulse, the next time he comes across it in a store.

"The balance of power will provide the stability that the world of the 21st century is likely to achieve, rent as it will be, by passionate tribalism and by such seemingly insoluble issues like that posed by mass migration from the South to the North, and from farm to city. There may be mass transfers of population, such as those between Greece and Turkey in the aftermath of the First World War; really mass murders. It will be a time of troubles, in need of a unifier; an Alexander or Mohammed.

"A great change that will come about as a result of emerging conflicts between peoples who live side by side — and which will, by their intensity, take primacy over their other conflicts — is that political rivalry will be within regions, rather than between them. This will bring about a turning back from global politics. After a decade in which the U.S. and the Soviet Union dueled across oceans, the powers will focus on protecting themselves against forces on their frontiers — or within them.

"The American people do not know economic science and care little about it, hence, they are always ripe for war. They cannot avoid war, notwithstanding their religious morality, nor can they find in religion the solution to their earthly problems. They are knocked out of shape by economic experts who cause Shockwaves that wreck budgets and buying habits. The American public is yet to realize that we control their buying habits." 

There we have it. Split up nations into tribal factions, keep the populace struggling to make a living and concerned with regional conflicts so that they will never have an opportunity to get a clear view of what is going on, let alone challenge it, and at the same time, bring about a drastic lowering of the world's population.

We see this happening in the former Yugoslavia, where the country is being forced into small, tribal entities, and we see it in America, where the average family has both parents working, and yet cannot make ends meet. These parents do not have time to pay careful attention to how they are being deceived and led into economic slavery. It is all a set-up.

Today, we observe — if we have the time— that the United States stand at the threshold of progressive dissolution as the result of Tavistock's silent "control" war against the American nation. The Bush presidency was a total disaster, and the Clinton presidency will be even more of a shock. This is the way the blueprint is drawn, and we, the people, are fast losing faith in our institutions and our ability to remake America into what it was intended to be — a very far cry from what it is now — overrun by foreign people who threaten to engulf the nation — a South-North invasion right here in our own country.

We have surrendered our real wealth for a promise of greater wealth, instead of compensation in real terms. We have fallen into the toils of the Babylonian system of "capitalism," which isn't capitalism at all, but an appearance of capital, as typified by currency which is in fact negative capital. This is deceptive and destructive. The U.S. dollar has the appearance of currency, but it is in fact a token of debt and indebtedness.

Currency as we know it will be balanced by war and genocide—which is what is happening in front of our very eyes. Total goods and services is real capital, and currency can be printed up to this level, but not beyond it. Once currency is printed beyond the level of goods and services, it becomes a destructive, subtractive force. War is the only way to "balance" the system by killing those creditors, which the people docilely gave up true value in exchange for inflated currency.

Energy (economics) is the key to all earthly activities. Hence the often repeated statement I have made that all wars are economic in origin. The thrust of the One World Government-New World Order must, of necessity, be to obtain a monopoly of all goods and services, raw materials, and control over the manner in which economics is taught. Only in this framework can the New World Order gain full control. In the United States, we are constantly helping the One World Government to obtain control of the world's natural resources by being tricked into giving part of our income for this purpose. It is called "foreign aid."

Tavistock's Operation Research project states as follows:

"Our research has established that the simplest mode of gaining control of people is to keep them undisciplined and in the dark of basic systems and principles while at the same time keeping them disorganized, confused and distracted by issues which are of relatively little import

"In addition to our less direct long-range penetration methods, this can be accomplished by a disengagement of mental activities and providing low quality programs of public education in mathematics, logic, system designs and economics and by discouraging technical creativity.

"Our mode calls for emotional stimulus, increased use of amplifiers which induce self-indulgence, whether direct (television programs) or advertising. We at Tavistock have found that the best way to accomplish the goal is through an unremitting and unrelenting emotional affrontation and attack (mental rape) through a constant barrage of sex, violence, wars, racial strife both in the electronic and print media. This steady diet could be called 'mental junk food'.

"Of primary importance is the revision of history and law and subjecting the populace to the deviant creation, thus shifting thinking from personal needs to constructed, fabricated outside priorities. The general rule is that there is profit in confusion, the greater the confusion, the greater the profit. One of the ways in which this can be accomplished is to create problems and then offer solutions.

"It is essential to divide the people, keep the adults' attention away from real issues and overcome their thinking with matters of relatively little importance. The young must be kept ignorant of mathematics; the proper teaching of economics and history must never be made available. Keep all groups so occupied with an endless round of issues and problems that they have no time to think clearly, and here, we rely on entertainment which should not reach beyond the mental capacity of a child in the sixth grade.

"When government is able to seize private property without just compensation, it is certain that people are ripe for surrender and consenting to slavery and legal encroachment. Energy sources which support a primitive economy are a supply of raw materials, the consent of people to labor, and assume a certain place, position, level in the social structure viz., provide labor at various levels of the structure.

"Each class, therefore, guarantees its level of income and hence controls the class immediately below it, thereby preserving the class structure. One of the best examples of this was found in the caste system in India, in which rigid control was exercised, ensuring that upward mobility which could threaten the elite at the top, was constrained. In this method is security and stability attained, and also a government from the top.

"The sovereignty of the elite is threatened when the lower classes, through communications and education become informed and envious of the power and possessions of the class above them. As some of them become better educated, they seek to rise higher through a real knowledge of economics-energy. This presents a real threat to the sovereignty of the elite class.

"It follows that the rise of the lower classes must be postponed long enough for the elite class to achieve energy (economic) dominance, labor by consent becoming a lesser economic source. Until such economic dominance is achieved to the fullest extent possible, the consent of people to labor and let others handle their affairs has to be taken into account. Failure to achieve this goal would result in interference in the final transfer of energy sources (economic wealth) to the control of the elite.

"Until such times, it is essential to recognize that public consent is still the essential key to the release of energy in the process of economic amplification. A consent of energy release system is therefore vital. Artificial security must be provided in the absence of the mother's womb, which can take the form of withdrawal, protective devices and shelters. Such shells will provide a stable environment for stable and unstable activity, and provide a shelter for the evolutionary processes of growth, that is to say, survival in a shelter that gives defensive protection against offensive activities.

"It applies equally to the elite and the lower classes, but there is a definite difference in the manner in which both these classes approach the solution of the problem. Our social science scientists have made out a very compelling case that the reason why individuals create a political structure is because they have a subconscious desire to perpetuate their childhood-dependency relationship.

"In the simplest of terms, what the subconscious longing demands is an earthly god to eliminate risks from their lives, put food on the table and pat them on the back in a comforting way when things don't go well. The demand for an earthly problem-solver-risk-eliminator is insatiable, which has given rise to a substitute earthly god: the politician. The insatiable public demand for 'protection' is met by promises, but the politician actually delivers little or nothing on his promises.

"Ever present in humans is a desire to control or subdue others who disturb their daily existence. However, they are unable to cope with the moral and religious issues such actions would raise, so they give the task to professional 'hit men', which we collectively call politicians.

"The services of politicians are engaged for a number of reasons, which, in the main are listed in the following order: 

1) To obtain the longed-for security without managing it. 

2) To obtain action without the need to act, and without having to give the desired action thought. 

3) To avoid responsibility for their intentions. 

4) To obtain the benefits of reality without exerting the necessary discipline of learning. 

"We can readily divide a nation into two sub-categories, the Political Sub Nation and the Docile Sub-Nation. The politicians hold quasi-military jobs, of which the lowest is the police force, next come attorneys. The presidential level is run by the international bankers. The docile sub-nation finances the political machine by consent, that is to say, through taxation. The sub nation remains attached to the political sub-nation, the latter feeding off it and growing stronger, until the day comes when it is strong enough to devour its creator, the people." 

When read in conjunction with the systems outlined in my book, the "Committee of 300", it is relatively easy to see just how far Tavistock's Operation Research project has succeeded, and nowhere more so than in the United States.

Recent statistics show that 75 percent of sixth grade school children were unable to pass what was called "the maths test." The maths test consisted of elementary simple arithmetic, which ought to tell us something. Mathematics did not come into the test at all. Cause for alarm?

You be the judge.

Part 8 : Panama - The Naked Truth

One of the more recent examples is perhaps also the most blatant diplomacy by deception case on record: The Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Treaty. The treaty deserves closer scrutiny than it was subjected to at the time it was drawn up and allegedly negotiated. I hope to bring out important implications that were never fully nor properly explored or addressed which now more than ever, need amplification. One of these is the danger that we, the sovereign people, face of being forced under the jurisdiction of the United Nations in the near future. A slippery deal like Carter's Panama Canal give-away, could be sprung on us again if we don't know what to look for.

Not generally known is that Anglo-Persian, a British government owned oil company, tried to buy a concession from the Colombian government for canal rights flanking U.S. territory, at the time the United States was negotiating with Colombia for these rights. Irving Frederick Yates, a British diplomat, almost pulled off a deal with Colombia that would have thwarted U.S. plans to purchase the land for the canal zone. Yates was stopped at the last minute by a diplomatic incident which invoked the Monroe Doctrine.

A short review of the history of how the United States acquired the land through which the Panama Canal was built, might help us to understand subsequent events:

• In the period 1845-1849, the government of Colombia concluded a treaty with the United States, granting the U.S. right of transit across the Isthmus of Panama.

• In 1855 Panama was given federal status by a constitutional amendment Prior to the revolution of 1903, Panama had been part of Colombia.

• On April 19, 1850, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty between Great Britain and the United States was signed, in which both parties agreed not to obtain or maintain any exclusive control of a proposed canal, and guaranteed its neutrality. At the time Colombian oil was the key issue.

• On February 5, 1900, the first Hay Pauncefote treaty between Great Britain and the United States was signed. The treaty renounced British rights to a joint construction to build a canal and ownership, and was rejected when it reached the British Parliament

• The second Hay-Pauncefote treaty was signed in November 1901, giving the United States the sole right of construction, maintenance and control of a canal.

• On Jan. 23,1903, the Hay-Heran treaty between Colombia and the United States was signed, which provided for the acquisition by the United States of a canal zone. The Colombian Senate did not ratify the treaty.

• The Hay-Bunua-Varilla treaty between the United States and the new government of Panama was signed on Nov. 18,1903: Panama sold in perpetuity a zone five miles wide on either side of the future canal, with full jurisdiction to the United States.

• The United States gained the right also to fortify the canal zone, and paid $10 million for the rights and further agreed to pay an annual fee of $250,000.

• Released from the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty in January of 1903, the United States and Colombia negotiated the Hay-Herran Treaty, which accorded United States sovereignty over the territory five miles wide on either side of the proposed canal.

• The treaty was signed on Feb. 26,1904. It is of the utmost importance to take cognizance that the land five miles wide on either side of the proposed canal, was henceforth sovereign United States territory, which could not be given away or otherwise disposed of, save and except by a Constitutional amendment ratified by all of the states.

• Ratification of the treaty was delayed by Colombia and it was not until eleven years later, on April 6,1914, that the Thompson-Urrutia treaty was signed, with the U.S. expressing regret over differences that had arisen with Colombia, and agreeing to pay Colombia the sum of $25 million by which action, Colombia ratified the treaty.

• On Sept. 2,1914, the boundaries of the Canal Zone were defined and further sovereign rights of protection were conceded to the United States. The Panama Canal Zone then became sovereign territory of the United States.

• The Thompson-Urrutia Treaty was signed on April 20, 1921. The terms of the treaty were that Colombia recognized the independence of Panama. The previously disputed boundaries were fixed, and diplomatic relations established with the signing of various accords between Panama and Colombia.

• The U.S. Senate delayed ratification for another seven years, but on April 20, 1928, finally ratified the Thompson-Urrutia Treaty with certain modifications.

• The Colombian Congress similarly ratified the treaty on Dec. 22,1928.

Previously, in 1927 the Panamanian government said that it did not give the United States sovereignty at the time the treaties were signed. But the League of Nations refused to hear this patently absurd dispute, and the indisputable American sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone territory was reconfirmed when President Florencio Harmodio Arosemena disavowed the Panama government's appeal to the League of Nations.

It is of the utmost importance for every American, especially in these days, when the Constitution is being trampled underfoot by politicians, to take note of how the U.S. Constitution was scrupulously observed throughout the negotiations with Colombia and Panama. Treaties were drawn up and by the Senate and signed by the President. An appropriate period of time was allowed to pass while the agreement was studied before it was ratified.

Later, we shall compare the constitutional manner in which the treaty between the U.S. and Colombia over Panama was handled, with the slipshod, deceptive, crooked, wreathed in dishonesty, unconstitutional, bordering on fraudulent conduct of the Carter administration in giving the property of the sovereign people of the United States to Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos, and actually paying him to accept it.

The only major mistake the United States made in 1921 was in not instantly declaring the canal and land sovereign possessions of the sovereign people of the United States and making it a state of the United States, in terms of the Constitution which mandates that a territory become a State once it is a territory of the United States. Failure to make the Panama Canal Zone a state was to invite the Rockefeller international bankers to come in and steal the Panama Canal Zone from its owners, the sovereign American people, an action aided by President Carter every step of the way under cover of diplomacy by deception.

It is said that if we do not profit from our mistakes, then we are bound to repeat them. This maxim applies to the United States today more than ever when we examine the role of the United States in the Bolshevik Revolution, the First World War, Palestine, the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam. We must not allow the illegal precedents set by the Carter administration and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be used against us in any future treaty negotiations, such as those likely to come up with the United Nations in the near future. Such attempts to subvert the Constitution might take the form of subjugating our military forces to the command of the United Nations.

The precedent set by the successful theft of the Panama Canal from the sovereign owners, we the people, has resulted in wars at great cost in lives and money, an assumption of powers not given to the president by the Constitution, and a widening of diplomacy by deception actions leading to contempt for the Constitution by the secret upper level parallel government such as is occurring in Somalia, Bosnia and South Africa.

This is why I believe it is necessary to ensure that no more Panama Canal give-aways are allowed to occur, and the only way to prevent a repetition of that mass swindle carried out undercover of diplomacy by deception is to examine what happened in the period l965 to 1973. If we know what happened, then our chances of preventing it from happening again are improved.

To understand how the Carter administration was able to swindle the sovereign people of the United States, one must have at least a working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. To interpret the Constitution, we also need to know our form of government and understand that its foreign policies are firmly anchored in Vattel's "Law of Nations," which the Founding Fathers used to shape our Constitution. We must also understand treaties and their relationship to our Constitution. There are only a handful of senators and members of the House who have a clear understanding of these vital matters.

We constantly hear the ill-informed referring to the United States as a "democracy." The print and electronic media is particularly heinous at perpetuating this falsehood, I think, of as part of an deliberate deception designed to mislead the people. The United States is not a democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic, or a Confederated Republic or a Federal Republic, or an amalgamation of all three. To fail to understand this is the first step into confusion.

Madison brought out that we are not a democracy. It was controversy over the form of our government that led to the Civil War. Had secession from the Union not come up, there would, possibly, and very probably, not have been a war. President Abraham Lincoln believed that there was a plot that had its origin in England to dismember the United States of America, and make of it two nations, which could then always be played off, one against the other, by the international bankers. The Civil War was fought to make the point that, once sovereign, always sovereign and that the South could not secede from the Union. The issue of sovereignty and sovereign territory was decided once and for all by the Civil War.

In a Constitutional Republic, the people who reside in the States are the sovereigns. In the House and Senate are the representatives or agents if that is a better description of how they are supposed to function. This is spelt out in the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights which states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

The president is not a king, nor is he the commander-in-chief of the military, except during declared wars (there can be no other legal kind.) It is his job and duty to uphold the Constitution, which he swears an oath to do. Many of our agents, including the president, have flagrantly violated the Constitution. Perhaps the most flagrant of these occurred when President Carter and 57 senators, under cover of diplomacy by deception, gave away the sovereign people's canal at Panama, i.e., in effect they attempted to dispose of sovereign territory belonging to the United States.

United States territory, under the U.S. Constitution cannot be alienated. The authority for this statement is found in Congressional Record Senate, S1524-S7992, April 16, 1926. The Founding Fathers passed a resolution that U.S. Territory cannot be alienated by giving it away or ceding it to another party, save and except by a constitutional amendment ratified by all of the states.

There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses the question of political parties. As I have so often said in the past, politicians arose because we, the sovereign people, were too soft, too lazy to do the work ourselves and so we elected agents and paid them to do the work for us, leaving them for the most part, unsupervised. That is what the House and Senate are today; unsupervised agents of we the people, who are running amuck and trampling the U.S. Constitution underfoot.

The Panama Canal treaty enacted by President Carter was a much bigger scandal than the Iran/Contra affair and the Tea Pot Dome scandal, referred to in the chapters on Rockefeller oil politics and the petroleum industry. Who makes the laws? The Senate and the House enact legislation that becomes law when it is signed by the President Are treaties part of the law? First, let us understand that a treaty is defined in the Constitution (under Article 6, Section 2, and Article III,) Section 2 as law after the Senate has written up the treaty, and it has been passed by the House, and signed by the President

The House plays a crucial role in treaty-making, as it has the power to nullify a treaty because they come under international and interstate commerce regulated by the House. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3-"to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.") The Constitution says in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that the legislature makes treaties, NOT private individuals which Linowitz and Bunker were, although purporting to represent the United States.

Article 1, Section 7:

"Every bill which shall have Carter, Bush, and now Clinton have acted as if they were all-powerful kings, when they are not. We had Carter dealing in international law and giving away the sovereign people's property to Torrijos, and we had Bush going to war without a declaration of war, and now we have Clinton attempting to make use of proclamations (executive orders) to legislate. The Constitution is clear on these matters; there is only one place in the Constitution where power is given to deal in international law, and that is the Congress. It is not an expressed power of the President, no matter what the circumstances may be. 

(Part 10, Article 1, Section 8.) 

What Carter and Bush did, and what Clinton is attempting to do now, is to compress and squeeze the Constitution to make it fit the desires and aims of the Committee of 300. Two examples that come to mind; abortion and gun control. Carter did this compressing and squeezing in the Panama canal give-away. Carter was guilty of perjury in usurping and claiming he had the right to dispose of sovereign U.S. property in Panama.

Carter's power to act as a surrogate for David Rockefeller and the drug banks allegedly under cover of negotiations over the Panama Canal, are neither expressly stated, implied not incidental to another power in the Constitution. Therefore, Carter's actions over Panama were illegal. But Carter got away with violating and trampling the Constitution underfoot as did his successors Bush and Clinton.

If we read Vattel's Law of Nations correctly, on which our foreign policy was based by the Founding Fathers, we see that it never gave a federal power nor a Congressional power to give, sell or otherwise dispose of sovereign territory belonging to the sovereign people of the United States. Treaty power can never exceed that power found in Vattel's Law of Nations.

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and a careful reading of the Constitution, makes it perfectly clear that neither the president, the House or the 165 Senate, is authorized to give, sell, or otherwise dispose of any sovereign territory of the United States, save and except by means of an amendment to the Constitution ratified by all of the States. This was not done in the case of the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Treaty: therefore every one of the 57 senators who signed the agreement violated his oath of office, and that also includes President Carter. Because of their treasonous conduct, the United States lost control of a key element in its defense, our canal at Panama.

What are the facts of the so-called Panama Canal Treaty fraudulently signed into law by President Carter? Let us deal with what it means to negotiate a treaty. Negotiate implies that there is a give-and-take objective by the negotiators. Secondly, those who do the negotiating must own the property or money or whatever it is that the negotiations are about, or be duly authorized by the owners to negotiate on their behalf. Also, when one gives something, in law there has to be a "consideration" for what is given. If there is consideration from one side only, then it stands in law that there can be no treaty, and there is no treaty agreement.

As I have said, when negotiating a treaty agreement, it is, paramount that the parties doing the negotiating are legally entitled to do so. In the Panama Canal Treaty, the negotiators were not empowered by the Constitution to negotiate. Neither Ellsworth Bunker nor Sol Linowitz (alleged to be a U.S. ambassador) were qualified to negotiate; for the first reason that the treaty document was not written up by the Senate, and because there was a total absence of objectivity in the alleged negotiating done by Bunker and Linowitz.

Neither Linowitz nor Bunker should have had a vested interest in the Panama Canal Treaty, but both had a very big financial stake in the project it was to their personal financial benefit that the treaty be successful. This was sufficient reason for the treaty to be declared null and void. The Constitution was trampled underfoot by the Bunker/ Linowitz appointments. Article 11, Part 2, Section 2 states that Linowitz and Bunker had to have "the advice and consent of the Senate," which neither of them ever received.

Linowitz was a director of the Marine and Midland Bank with extensive banking connections in Panama, and had previously done work for the government of Panama. The Marine and Midland Bank was taken over by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, the premiere drug money laundering bank in the world. The Midland Bank takeover was carried out with the express permission of Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, even though Volcker knew full-well that the purpose of the takeover was for the Rockefeller-owned banks in Panama to gain a foothold in the lucrative cocaine-banking trade in Panama. The acquisition of Midland by the Hong Kong and Shangai Bank was highly irregular, and bordered on a criminal act under U.S. banking laws.

The Bunker family did business with Torrijos and had previously done business with Arnulfo Arias and former President of Panama, Marco O. Robles. No matter that both U.S. negotiators allegedly had broken off these relationships; no matter that a a flimsy and transparent deception was carried out (the six-month waiting period), the Constitution says in Article 11, Section 2, Part 2 that the President will appoint an ambassador or ministers "with the advice and consent of the Senate."

There is no talk of a waiting period which was used to get around the conflict of interest surrounding Linowitz and Bunker. It was all just so a gross deception of the American people.

The appointment of Linowitz and Bunker was clouded and fouled in deception, reeking of dishonesty and broke the sacred fiduciary trust the president is supposed to have with we, the sovereign people. Never was diplomacy by deception quite so artfully carried out than in the appointment of Linowitz and Bunker to be the "negotiators" of a treaty that the Senate never wrote up; in outright defiance of the Constitution by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The members of the committee ought all to have been impeached and perhaps even charged with treason at the time they accepted the drug banker's choice of Ellsworth and Linowitz as "negotiators."

We come now to what Bunker and Linowitz negotiated. The Panama Canal and territory could not be negotiated; it was the sovereign territory of the United States which could not be disposed of save and except by means of a constitutional amendment passed by Congress and ratified by all of the States. Also, the two ambassador's credentials, if they had any, were not drawn up by the Senate. Carter and his crooked Wall Street accomplices deceived the American people into believing that Bunker and Linowitz were acting lawfully on behalf of the United States, when in fact they were breaking U.S. law.

The strategy worked out by the Wall Street bankers was to keep the American people in doubt and in the dark making things so hazy that they would say, "well I suppose we can trust President Carter on this one." In this the Wall Street bankers and David Rockefeller were ably assisted by an army of paid, kept and directed political writers; newspaper editors, the major television networks, and, particularly two U.S. Senators.

Sen. Dennis De Concini added reservations to the treaty, which were no more than window dressing to be used to excuse the Senator's failure to uphold the Constitution. The "reservations" were not signed by Omar Torrijos and were of no force and effect, but the action gave voters in Arizona a false impression that De Concini was not wholly in favor of the treaty. This was altogether low political chicanery. Voters in Arizona had informed De Concini that they were overwhelmingly against the treaty.

So what was "negotiated? What was the give-and take, the consideration that must by law be an integral part of treaty negotiations? The startling truth is that there was none. We, the sovereign people, already owned the sovereign territory of the Panama Canal Zone; Torrijos and the Panamanian government had no consideration to offer and gave none to the United States. Thus, the negotiations were patently one-sided, which alone makes the Torrijos-Carter treaty null and void.

If there is no consideration from either side, then there can be no treaty. Contracts often contain a token payment as a consideration to make the contract legal, which it otherwise would not be. Sometimes, as little as $10 is given as a consideration, just to make it legal. It was as simple as that To repeat Torrijos gave no consideration to the United States. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that Rockefeller's hirelings could do what they did, all its members failed in their duty to we, the people, and therefore should have been forced from office.

Before the Senate ratified the misbegotten Panama Canal treaty, it should have been studied for at least two to three years. Consider the length of time taken by the United States and Colombia to ratify the 1903 treaty. That was proper; the rushed study by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the Carter-Torrijos treaty was highly improper. In fact, the treaty should never have been allowed to come up for consideration, since the Senate itself did not write up the treaty, and only saw it after it was already negotiated. This is in direct contravention of the Constitution.

Thus, signing of a nullified treaty by Carter was a travesty and a deception by the President, aimed at harming his own people and for the benefit of the drug banks and their Wall Street counterparts. No matter how long it has been in existence, the Carter-Torrijos treaty remains to this day, null and void. The document contains no less than 15 gross violations of treaty-making in terms of the U.S. Constitution, and perhaps another five more.

Only a Constitutional amendment, passed the Congress and ratified by all the States would have validated the Carter-Torrijos treaty. But the treaty was so badly flawed that it could have been overturned by the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court had a mind to do its duty to we, the people.

All definitions of a treaty state that a treaty has to give something on both sides. The Panama canal already belonged to the United States. Of that there is no doubt, but let us retrace our steps and reconfirm this position. The 1903 treaty was signed by both parties, one gave land, the other received a cash consideration. The United States let it be known that, henceforth, the territory it had paid for was sovereign

U.S. territory. Not a single one of the debates held during the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal hearings disputed that the canal was U.S. sovereign territory and had been since 1903.

The wording of the 1903 treaty is very important to introduce at this point,

"Article 111 'to the entire exclusion of the of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any sovereign rights, power or authority... are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise of the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority...and exercise it as if it were American territory."'

This left no room for doubt that this was a treaty that established the Panama Canal Zone as sovereign U.S. territory from Nov. 18,1903 onwards and in perpetuity.

I have mentioned sovereignty many times herein. A good definition of sovereignty is found in George Randolph Tucker's book on international law. Another good explanation of sovereignty can be found in Dr. Mulford's book "Sovereignty of Nations":

"The existence of sovereignty of the nation, or political sovereignty, is indicated by certain signs or notes which are universal. These are independence, authority, supremacy, unity and majesty... A divisive sovereignty is a contradiction of the supremacy which is implied in all of its necessary conception and inconsistent with its substance in the organic will. It is indefeasible. It can not, through legal forms and legist devices, be annulled and avoided, nor can it be voluntarily abdicated or voluntarily resumed, but involves a continuity of power and action...It works through all members and in all organs and offices of the State..." 

What Carter attempted to do on behalf of Rockefeller and the drug banks was to alter the 1903 Panama treaty "through legal forms and legist devices." But the 1903 Panama treaty could not "be annulled and avoided" by such legist devices. That left Carter with a null and void fraudulent document which he passed off on the American people as a genuine treaty, as a new and legally binding treaty, which it was not then, nor can it ever be.

When the Rockefeller drug banks began planning on how to protect their investments in Panama in the 1960s, the cocaine trade in Colombia was booming. Inasmuch as trouble was brewing in Hong Kong — as the Chinese government having demanded control of the island and a bigger share of the heroin trade conducted for centuries by the British — the Wall Street international bankers began to regard Panama as a newer safe haven for drug money-laundering operations. In addition, the huge amounts of cash generated by the cocaine trade flowing into Panamanian banks needed to be protected.

But to do this, Panama had to be controlled by a representative of the Wall Street banks, and this would not be easy. History shows that President Roosevelt was the first to try and weaken the 1903 Panama Canal treaties by giving away the area of Colon, which subsequently became a hub of commerce and a drug-trafficking center.

President Dwight Eisenhower was the second U.S. official to attempt to weaken the sovereignty of the Panama Canal, when, on Sept. 17, 1960, he ordered the Panamanian flag flown alongside the U.S. flag in the Canal Zone. Eisenhower had carried out this treasonous action on behalf of the CFR and David Rockefeller. However, even Eisenhower's act of treason could not "annul and avoid" the 1903 treaty. Eisenhower had no right to order the flag of a foreign government to be flown in the sovereign territory of the United States; it was in gross violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Encouraged by the treasonous conduct of Roosevelt and Eisenhower, Panama's President Roberto F. Chiari formally requested the United States to revise the Panama Canal treaty. This was one month after the Eisenhower flag incident. If our Constitution means anything, it means that no such action is possible by the United States unless it passes the House and Senate and is ratified by all of the States. In January of 1964, paid agitators stirred up rioting and Panama broke off relations with the United States. This was classic stage-management by the Wall Street bankers.

Then, in April 1964, President Lyndon Johnson, (without the consent of the House and Senate), told the Organization of American States (OAS) that the U.S. "was willing to review every issue involved in the rift with Panama over the Canal" and diplomatic relations resumed. President Johnson had no power to deal in international law, nor did he have the power to do anything to alter the 1903 treaty "by legist" or any other deceptive device.

Johnson actively sought measures that would enable new negotiations over the 1903 treaty to commence. Johnson did not have the power to negotiate on treaties and his actions further attacked the sovereignty of the Canal territory, encouraging the Wall Street bankers led by Rockefeller, to become bolder. Clearly, Johnson's acts were unconstitutional because he was attempting to moderate a treaty covering the sovereign territory of the Panama Canal, which no president has the power to do.

The Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal treaty came about because Panama was in debt to the Wall Street banks for approximately $8 billion. The whole wretched piece of deception was designed to force the sovereign American people to make good on what Panama owed to the Wall Street bankers. This was not the first time that we, the people, were swindled by the Wall Street bankers. It will be recalled that it was the U.S. taxpayers who were forced to pay $100 million for German commercialized reparation bonds in the period 1921 to 1924. As in the case of the Carter-Torrijos treaty, Wall Street bankers were deeply involved in the German bonds, the most notable being J.P. Morgan and Kuhn and Loeb and Company.

Following a carefully scripted Rockefeller scenario, in October of 1968, Arnulfo Arias was ousted by the Panama Defense Force con trolled by Colonel Omar Torrijos. Torrijos immediately abolished all political parties in Panama. On Sept 1, 1970, Torrijos rejected the Johnson draft of 1967 (ostensibly to revise the 1903 treaty) on the grounds that it fell short of complete surrender and control of the canal to Panama.

The stage was set for the Wall Street conspirators to move forward under cover of diplomacy by deception and they began to take steps to put the Panama Canal in the hands of Torrijos, who Rockefeller knew could be trusted not to rip the lid off drug money laundering banks in Panama, as Arnulfo had threatened to do. In return, Torrijos was promised that the Panama Canal Zone would be handed back to Panama.

The new treaty turned control of Panama over to the Torrijos government and was signed by President Carter, who will go down in history as having possibly the worst record of violating the Constitution of any President of this century, with the exception of George Bush. When reviewing the fraudulent Carter-Torrijos treaty, one is reminded of the words of the late, great Congressman Louis T. McFadden.

On June 10,1932, McFadden denounced the Federal Reserve Board as,

"one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known..."

The Carter-Torrijos treaty is one of the most corrupt treaties the world has ever known.

The American cocaine trade had far outstripped the Far East trade in heroin, so Panama became one of the most sheltered banking havens in the drug money laundering world. The booze-barons of yesteryear became the dope barons of today. Nothing much has changed except that the mechanics of concealment are a great deal more sophisticated today than they were then. Now it is in the gentlemanly image of the board room and the exclusive clubs of London, Nice, Monte Carlo and Acapulco. The oligarchists maintain a discreet distance from their court servants; untouchable and serene in their palaces and their power.

Is the drug business conducted in the bootlegging manner? Do sinister-looking men travel around carrying suitcases stuffed with $100 bills? They do, but only on very rare occasions. Mainly the money end of the dope trade is transacted with the witting cooperation of internationals banks and their interfacing financial institutions. Close down the drug money laundering banks, and the drug trade will begin to dry up. Close up the rat holes and it will be easier to get rid of the rodents.

This is what happened in Panama. The rat holes were closed up by Gen. Manuel Noriega. The international bankers could hardly take that lying down. When one hits the drug money laundering banks, repercussions are sure to follow swiftly. To give an idea of what was at stake, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) estimated that $250 million per day changed hands through teletype transfers of which 50 percent was interbank money derived from the drug trade. The Cayman Islands, Panama, Bahamas, Andorra, Hong Kong and the Swiss banks handle the bulk of it with a larger and larger volume going through Panamanian banks since the 1970s.

It was increasingly clear to the drug money laundering bankers in the United States that in Panama they had a winner. With that understanding came great concern that the money launderers had to have an asset in place in Panama whom they could control. Arnulfo Arias had shaken them when he began poking around in their banks in Panama City. The DEA estimates that $6 billion a year finds its way from the United States to Panama. Coudert Brothers, the Committee of 300 "mob" lawyers for the Eastern Liberal Establishment, began steps that would ensure that another Arnulfo Arias did not threaten the increasingly lucrative cocaine business bursting their Panamanian banks with cash.

The man Coudert Brothers chose to oversee the Panama negotiations with Torrijos was one of their own, Sol Linowitz, whom we met earlier. A partner in Coudert Brothers, director of Xerox, Pan American Airlines and the Marine Midland Bank, Linowitz had all the credentials needed to pull off what Rockefeller had in mind, i.e.: to seize the entire Panama Canal Zone. The messenger from the "Olympians" (the Committee of 300) found in Omar Torrijos the right sort of stuff for the purposes of the international bankers.

As described earlier herein, Panama was destabilized enough for Torrijos to seize power and abolish all political parties. The jackals of the American news media painted a glowing picture of Torrijos as an ardent Panamanian nationalist, one who felt keenly that the Panamanian people were wronged by the 1903 treaty which ceded the Panama Canal Zone to the United States. The "manufactured by David Rockefeller" brand that Torrijos bore was carefully concealed from the American people.

Thanks to the treasonous conduct of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in particular, the conduct of Senators Dennis De Concini and Richard Lugar, Panama passed into the hands of Gen. Torrijos and the Committee of 300 at a cost of billions of dollars to the U.S. taxpayers. But Torrijos, like so many of us mortals, seemed to lose sight of the fact of his maker, in his case, the "Olympians."

Originally hand-picked for the job by Kissinger and Linowitz, in the manner of all those who serve the secret upper-level parallel government of the United States, whether it be Secretary of State or Defense, Torrijos conducted himself well during the transfer of the Panama Canal from the sovereign people of the United States to the Wall Street bankers, the drug overlords and their executives. Then, to the dismay of his mentors, Torrijos began to take his role as a nationalist seriously, instead of continuing to be Wall Street's ventriloquist dummy.

Panama must be seen through the eyes of Trojan Horse Kissinger, that is to say, we must look at it as pivotal to Central America as Kissinger's future killing grounds for thousands of American soldiers. Kissinger's orders were to get another "Vietnam War" going in Central America. But Torrijos began to get other ideas. He opted instead to join the Contadora Group. While not perfect, the Contadoras were willing to do battle with the drug barons, so Torrijos became a contradiction to his masters, and for that he was "permanently immobilized."

Torrijos was murdered in August of 1981. The aircraft in which he was flying was rigged in much the same manner as the plane that took the son of Aristotle Onasis to his death. The controls were rigged to operate the aircraft's elevators (controlling climb and descent) opposite to what the pilot wanted. Instead of climbing after take off, the plane carrying Torrijos literally flew into the ground.

Panama's banks came under the control of a number of David Rockefeller's Wall Street banks as a convenient depository for dirty drug money, and was soon adjudicated the world's cocaine banking center while Hong Kong remained the heroin banking center. Rockefeller commissioned Nicolas Ardito Barletta, a former director of the World Bank and the Marine and Midland Bank (the same bank on whose board sat Linowitz) to take control of the banking situation.

Barletta was to restructure banking in Panama and alter banking laws to make it safe for the drug money launderers. Barletta was respect able enough to be above suspicion and had the necessary experience in handling vast amounts of dope cash gained from his connection with the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank — the premiere drug money laundering bank in the world — which was later to take over Midland Marine Bank in the United States.

Banco Nacional de Panama had by 1982 increased its cash flow of U.S. dollars by 500 percent over 1980 levels, according to U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) documents. Close to $6 billion in unreported money went from the United States to Panama from 1980 to 1984. In Colombia, DEA estimates put cocaine-generated cash at $25 billion for the period 1980 to 1983, with almost the total amount being deposited in Panama City banks. Six months after Torrijos was removed, strong-man Gen. Ruben Parades of the Panama Defense Force, was moved up by the drug bankers.

But like his predecessor, Parades showed every sign of not knowing who his bosses were. He started talking about Panama joining the Contadoras group. Kissinger had to deliver a message to Parades in February of 1983 and the general was smart enough to take notice and do an about-face, kicking the Contadoras out of Panama and pledging full support for Kissinger and the Wall Street international bankers.

Parades took great pains in cultivating the friendship of Arnulfo Arias, who was ousted by Torrijos, lending an air of respectability to his leadership. In Washington, Parades was promoted by Kissinger as a "staunch anti-communist friend of the United States." Not even the merciless execution of his 25-year old son by members of the Ochoa-Escobar cocaine clan deterred Parades; he kept Panama open for the cocaine trade and protected its banks.

Manuel Noriega, who was next in line in the PDF to Parades, had become increasingly concerned about the corrupting of the Panama Defense Force, which he had striven to keep out of the drug trade. Noriega plotted a coup against Parades who was subsequently overthrown by the Panama Defense Force and Noriega assumed the leadership of Panama, becoming commander of the PDF. At first there was little reaction; Noriega had been working for the CIA and the DEA for a number of years and was thought by Kissinger and Rockefeller to be "a company man.

When did doubts begin to arise on Wall Street and in Washington about Noriega?

I believe that it was immediately following the stunning success of a joint PDF-DEA anti-drug operation codenamed "Operation Pisces," which was publicly revealed by the DEA in May 1987.

The DEA characterized "Operations Pisces" as,

"the largest and most successful undercover investigation in federal drug enforcement history." 

The drug bankers found that they had good reason to fear Noriega and this can be seen from a letter written to Noriega by John Lawn, head of the DEA, dated May 27, 1987:

"As you know, the recently-concluded "Operations Pisces" was enormously successful, many millions of dollars and thousands of pounds of drugs have been taken from drug traffickers and international money launderers. Your personal commitment to 'Operation Pisces' and competent and professional and tireless efforts of the other officials of the Republic of Panama were essential to the final positive outcome of this investigation. Drug traffickers around the world are on notice that the proceeds and profits of their illegal ventures are not welcome in Panama." 

In a second letter to Noriega, Lawn wrote:

"I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my deep appreciation for the vigorous antidrug trafficking policy that you have adopted, which is reflected in the numerous expulsions from Panama of accused drug traffickers, the large seizures of cocaine and precursor chemicals that have occurred in Panama, and the eradication of marijuana in Panama territory." 

Gen. Paul Gorman, commanding general of U.S. forces Southern Command, stated during the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearings that he had never seen any evidence of wrong doing by Noriega, nor was there any hard evidence that Noriega was tied to the drug barons. The committee itself was unable to produce one shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

The committee let the American people down by failing to investigate charges made by Noriega, that Adam Murphy, who headed the Florida Task Force under the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System (NNBIS), stated most emphatically as follows:

"During my entire tenure with NNBIS and the South Florida Task Force, I never saw any intelligence that Gen. Noriega was involved in the drug trade. In fact, we always held up Panama as the model in terms of cooperation with the U.S. in the war on drugs. Remember, a grand jury indictment is not a conviction. And if the Noriega case ever comes to trial, I will look at the evidence of that jury's findings, but until that happens, I have no first-hand evidence of the general's involvement. My experience ran in the opposite direction." 

It was never brought out that "Operation Pisces" was made possible only through passage of Panamanian Law 29, pushed through by Noriega. This was reported by Panama's largest newspaper, "La Prensa", which complained bitterly that the Panama Defense Force was conducting a publicity campaign against drug, "that will devastate the Panamanian banking center."

No wonder. "Operations Pisces" closed down 54 accounts in 18 Panamanian banks and resulted in the seizure of $10 million in cash and large quantities of cocaine. This was followed by the freezing of another 85 accounts in banks whose deposits were made up of cocaine cash. Fifty eight major U.S., Colombian and some Cuban American runners were arrested and indicted on narcotics trafficking charges.

Yet, when Noriega was kidnapped and then dragged before a federal court in Miami, in a stunning violation of Noriega's civil rights. Judge William Hoevler refused to allow these letters and hundreds of other documents showing the anti-drug role played by Noriega to be admitted to the record. And we dare talk about "justice" in America, and our president talks about "war on drugs." The war on drugs ceased when Gen. Noriega was kidnapped and imprisoned in the United States.

In the wake of "Operation Pisces," a concerted campaign to discredit Gen. Noriega was launched in Panama and Washington. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) threatened that its loans to Panama would be called unless Noriega stopped his "dictatorial behavior," i.e. unless Noriega stopped battling the drug banks and cocaine merchants. Noriega advised the Panamanian people in a televised address on March 22,1986 that Panama was being strangled by the IMF. The IMF tried to pressure the labor unions to force Noriega from office by warning that dire austerity lay ahead for Panama unless Noriega was ousted.

The IMF's position with regard to Panama, Colombia and the Caribbean was made clear by John Holdson, a senior official of the World Bank, who stated that the cocaine "industry" was highly advantageous to producer countries:

"From their point of view, they simply couldn't find a better product." 

The Colombia office of the IMF said quite openly that as far as the IMF was concerned, marijuana and cocaine were crops like any other crop that brought much-needed foreign exchange into the economy of Latin America.

The Wall Street bankers and their Washington allies then brought Dr. Norman Bailey to public attention in support of the Civic Group in Panama and the United States. The Civic Group was formed to lend support to the Wall Street bankers attempts to get rid of Noriega, while making it appear as though it was a matter of public concern in Panama.

The following people lent their support to the Civic Group:

After the failure of IMF campaign, the State Department Coudert Brothers, the New York Times, Kissinger Associates and the Washington Post launched an all-out campaign of slander in the U.S. and the world press to turn public opinion against Noriega. In so doing, the conspirators sought and gained the support of drug dealers, drug bankers, couriers and assorted criminals. Anyone who would accuse Noriega of wrongdoing, or of being a drug dealer, even without proof, was welcome. The cash flow to Panamanian drug banks of $6 billion per annum had to be protected.

The Civic Crusade, the principle vehicle for coordinating the campaign to discredit, was organized in Washington D.C. in June 1987. Its principle backers and financial supporters were,

• the Coudert Brothers 

• Linowitz 

• the Trilateral Commission 

• William Colby (formerly of the CIA) 

• Kissinger Associates 

• William G. Walker 

Deputy Assistant of State for International Affairs of the U.S. State Department Jose Blandon, the self-described "international representative of Panama's opposition to Noriega," was employed to manage the organization.

Publicity was in the hands of Dr. Norman Bailey, a former Panamanian official of high rank. Dr. Bailey was employed by the National Security Council, whose duties were to study the movement of drug money, which of course gave him first-hand experience on how drug money was moved in and out of Panama's banks. Bailey was a close friend of Nicholas Ardito Barletta. Dr. Bailey collided head-on with Noriega when he tried to enforce IMF "conditionalities" that would have imposed greater austerity measures on the people of Panama. Bailey's partner was William Colby of the law firm, Colby, Bailey, Werner and Associates. It was to this law firm that the panic-stricken bankers and dope barons turned when it became apparent that Noriega meant business.

On taking up his post with the Civic Crusade, Bailey stated,

"I began my war against Panama when my friend Nicky Barletta resigned as President of Panama." 

Bailey had been in a unique position to find out about Panama's bank secrecy laws from Barletta, the man who'd set them up. Why was Bailey angry about Barletta losing his job?

The reason was that it robbed the dope barons and their banker allies of having their own "man in Panama," a serious blow to the smooth flow of cash and cocaine in and out of Panama. Barletta was also the IMF's trigger man, and a great favorite of the Eastern Liberal Establishment especially among members of the Bohemian Club. It was no wonder that Noriega collided head-on with Barletta and the Washington D.C. establishment.

Under Bailey's direction, the Civic Crusade turned the full circle from the cocaine barons of Colombia through the elitists of the drug trade in Washington and London. It was through Bailey that the low-class murdering cocaine mafia as well as the untouchable respectable names in the social and political registers in Washington, London, Boston and New York were made.

Bailey claimed that he wanted to oust the PDF "because it is the most heavily militarized country in the Western hemisphere." Bailey stated that a civilian junta would replace Noriega once he was ousted. We shall come to those whom Bailey proposed would run the post-Noriega Panama. In support of the Civic Crusade, six senate staffers flew to Panama in November of 1987 and remained there for four days. On their return, the staffers said it was essential for Noriega to resign, but made no mention of the staggering amounts of cash and cocaine flowing through Panama, nor of Noriega's efforts to interdict the drug trade. Although it did not spell it out, the Senate in a statement about Panama implied that if "the disorders continue," the U.S. military might have to be called in.

What was the nature of the disorders? Were they spontaneous expressions by the people of Panama of dissatisfaction with Noriega, or were they contrived, artificially created situations to suit the plans of the Wall Street bankers? For the answer, we need to examine the role played in Panama's "disorders" by John Maisto. Maisto was the No. 2 man in the U.S. embassy in Panama. He had served in South Korea, the Philippines and Haiti. Maisto had a history of trouble. After he arrived in these countries, unrest and "disorder" soon followed. According to an independent intelligence source, Maisto's influence was behind 90 percent of the street demonstrations in Panama.

Bailey did not try to hide his backing of Maisto. Addressing a forum at George Washington University, Bailey said that only if the people of Panama took to the streets and got themselves beaten up and shot, would Noriega be budged. Bailey added that unless television cam eras were on hand for such events, "it would be a wasted effort "

The final straw that broke Noriega's back came two years later in Feb. 1988, with an indictment handed down by a Miami Grand Jury. This vendetta by the Justice Department would come to seal Noriega's fate and points up the need to get rid of the archaic grand jury system, a hangover from the days of star chambers. Star chamber (grand jury) proceedings are never fair to the accused. The drug barons and their bankers combined with the political establishment in Washington D.C. to rid themselves of Noriega, who was quite properly perceived as a threat to their multi-billion dollar annual income.

Alarm bells began to sound in earnest and calls for action to remove Noriega became strident in 1986 following the forced closure of First Interamerica Bank and the PDF raid on Banco de Iberoamerica, which was owned by the Cali Cartel. Coupled with the destruction of a cocaine processing lab and a huge stock of ethyl ether in a remote jungle in Panama, the Committee of 300 gave the order to proceed with all possible speed have Noriega killed, or kidnapped and brought to the United States.

The Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, chaired by Sen. John Kerry failed to make enough mud stick to Noriega, although buckets of it were slung at him during what was tantamount to a trial of Noriega in absentia. The guardians of the $300 billion dollar off-shore drug trade called for quicker, harsher methods to be used to topple Noriega. Senator Alfonse D'Amato called for direct action: he wanted killer squads to go in an assassinate Noriega. D'Amato also advocated kidnapping.

Then, in response to pressure from Wall Street, President Bush changed the rules of engagement of U.S. forces in Panama; henceforth they were to seek confrontation with the PDF. On July 8,1989, General Cisneros, commander of the U.S. Army South in Panama, made an extraordinary statement, for which he should have been called to account:

"The OAS has not acted firmly enough to dislodge Noriega. Speaking for myself, I believe this is the moment for a military intervention in Panama." 

Since when is it permissible for the army to make political agenda? All during October and November of 1989, U.S. military forces in Panama kept up a running harassment of the PDF, which finally resulted in the tragic shooting death of an American soldier at a roadblock. The soldiers were ordered to stop at a roadblock set up by the PDF. An argument broke out and the soldiers drove off. Shots were fired and one of the U.S. servicemen was killed.

That was the signal for President Bush to launch his long-planned assault on Panama. As Panama was preparing for Christmas, on the evening of Dec. 20,1989, a violent act of aggression against Panama was launched, without first obtaining a declaration of war as mandated by the Constitution. Between 28,000 and 29,000 U.S. troops took part in the attack, which resulted in the deaths 7,000 Panamanian citizens, and the destruction of the entire area of Chorrillo. At least 50 U.S. soldiers died needlessly in this undeclared war. Noriega was kidnapped and flown to the United States in an act of brazen international brigandry, the forerunner of many yet to come.

Why was so much attention paid to Panama by the Bush administration? Why was there so much pressure to topple Noriega?

For the United States to go to such extraordinary lengths to get rid of an alleged dictator of a small country ought to tell us something. It ought to make us very curious as to what was behind this saga of diplomacy by deception. It should encourage us to be on the alert, to trust government even less, and not let diplomacy by deception on such a big scale sway us into believing that what the U.S. government does Noriega hit the drug oligarchists where it hurts; in their pockets.

He cost the dope money laundering banks a large slice of their profits. He brought the bankers into disrepute. He upset the status quo by putting teeth into Panama's banking laws. Noriega got in the way of Kissinger's Andes Plan and upset arms sales in Central America. He trampled on the toes of powerful people. For that, Gen. Manuel Noriega was condemned to spend the rest of his life in an American prison.

In the minds of most Americans, Panama is on the back burner, if in their thoughts at all. Noriega is firmly walled up in a prison, no longer a danger to the lawless Bush administration and the Wall Street bankers, or their drug cartel customers. Diplomacy by deception seems to have worked for Carter, Reagan and Bush. Forgotten is the fact that the blatantly illegal invasion of Panama cost the lives of 50 Americans and 7,000 Panamanians. Forgotten is the man whom the head of the DEA, agent John Lawn, once described as the best anti-drug team player he ever had in Panama. The cost to the U.S. taxpayers of keeping Panama open for drug trade business has never been disclosed.

Noriega's crime was that he knew too much about the drug trade and the banks that service it and in 1989 was a serious threat to Rockefeller's drug money laundering banks. So he had to be dealt with. The neighborhood destroyed by U.S. troops still lies in ruins. In Panama, press censorship is still enforced, even three years after the U.S. invasion force departed. In August of 1992, the mayor of Panama City, Mayin Correa, attacked the editor of "Momento" magazine for publishing an article which revealed the goings-on with the mayor and the "special accounts" in a Panamanian bank.

Opposition to Washington's puppet government is not tolerated. Any person who engages in protest demonstrations in Panama risks arrest and imprisonment. Even "planning" a demonstration is a crime, and the planners can be thrown in jail without trial. This is the legacy left behind by Bush and those in the House and Senate who permitted him to get away with flouting the U.S. Constitution.

Bribery and corruption is rife in Panama, with drug-related accusations flying thick and fast, right up to the top levels in Washington's surrogate "Porky" Endara's government, including Carlos Lopez, Chief Justice of the Panamanian Supreme Court The mess left behind by the Bush administration cries out to be investigated, but unhappily, no one in Washington is remotely interested in doing anything about it. The Civic Crusade has disappeared. It seems that the only civic crusade concerned the Noriega threat to the Wall Street bankers and their partners in the cocaine trade.

Will Bush ever be brought to trial for war crimes in Panama? Hardly likely, considering how the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a very modest claim by 500 Panamanian families for restitution of losses suffered during the December 1989 invasion. How about the drug trade that the removal of Noriega was supposed to guarantee to stop? The truth is, it has gone nowhere. According to my intelligence source, Colon, Panama's free trade zone, is handling about twice as much cocaine now than it did during the Noriega years. Intelligence reports tell of five to six ships loaded with drugs passing through there every day. Where before, only the top echelon officials were paid off by the drug barons, now it is everybody; drug trafficking in Panama has reached incredible new heights.

Along with the enormous increase in Panama's drug trade has come a corresponding rise in the crime rate: up 500 percent since Noriega was dragged off by his kidnappers in 1989. Gangs of unemployed youths roam once bustling Colon in search of work, only to be repeatedly turned away and left to their own devices, usually crime. With the PDF smashed, streets and highways belong to gangsters, including a few former PDF members, who cannot get work because they are "blacklisted." Several American companies based in the Colon Free Trade Zone were forced to move back to the United States because their executives were being kidnapped and held for ransom, often for as much as a million dollars. This could never have happened while Noriega was in command.

In fear of a greater crime rate than ever pertained during the rule of Noriega, a large army of private guards has sprung up. President Bush told the world that the Panama Defense Force was "a repressive tool" of the Noriega government, and let it be known that, along with his friend Dr. Bailey, he intended smashing the force. That left Panama without its formerly well-disciplined PDF, and in its place came 15,000 private guards and every member of government with his own private army. Lawlessness runs rampant through the streets of Panama.

Corruption is rife. U.S. grants (read U.S. taxpayers money), supposedly to rebuild destroyed neighborhoods, ended up in the greedy grasp of politicians placed in power by Washington. The result uninhabitable concrete blockhouse-shaped apartments without proper windows, bathrooms or kitchens; unpainted and unfit for human occupation.

This is what George Bush's "democracy" accomplished in Panama.