Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Pentagon lifts media ban on coffin photos

Image: Caskets aboard military plane
  
News organizations had been banned since the 1991 Gulf War from taking photos like this one, obtained by thememoryhole.org and originally taken by the Pentagon. The undated photo shows caskets of soldiers killed in Iraq being offloaded at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Families of America’s war dead will be allowed to decide if news organizations can photograph the homecomings of their loved ones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.
Gates said he decided to allow media photos of flag-draped caskets at Dover Air Force Base, Del., if the families agree. A working group will come up with details and logistics.
The new policy reverses a ban put in place in 1991 by then President George H.W. Bush. Some critics contended the government was trying to hide the human cost of war.
"We should not presume to make the decision for the families — we should actually let them make it," Gates said at a Pentagon news conference.
"We’ve seen so many families go through so much," added Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said the goal is to meet family needs in the most dignified way possible.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama asked Gates to review the policy of media coverage of the fallen returning to Dover. He said Gates came back with a policy consistent with that used at Arlington National Cemetery.
Gibbs said it gives families the final say and "allows them to make that decision and protect their privacy if that’s what they wish to do. And the president is supportive of the secretary’s decision."

Shortly after Obama took office, Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey also asked the White House to roll back the 1991 ban.
Over the years, some exceptions to the policy were made, allowing the media to photograph coffins in some cases, until the administration of President George W. Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A leading military families group has said that the policy, enforced without exception during George W. Bush's presidency, should be changed so that survivors of the dead can decide whether photographers can record their return.
Ritual at Dover base Air Force cargo planes carrying the war dead home land on the tarmac at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware where a solemn ritual is performed: The anonymous coffins known as "transfer cases," each sealed in the Stars and Stripes and marked with a tag, are unloaded, ultimately to be delivered back to their loved ones for burial.
Some in the U.S. media have argued that the rule is a political attempt to downplay the cost of war — which include at least 4,245 members of the U.S. military who have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003 — especially in light of images from Vietnam that some credit with turning U.S. opinion against that war.
Obama swept into office in part on campaign promises of greater transparency than the Bush administration.
Opponents of the ban argue Americans have a responsibility to pay their respects and consider the reality of being a nation at war when its military is all-volunteer and most people are insulated from the destruction.
Professor filed lawsuit
"It's the biggest single aspect of the cost of war. For that aspect to be invisible, undebated, undiscussed by American people is just wrong," said Ralph Begleiter, a journalism professor at the University of Delaware who sued the Pentagon to force the release in 2005 of pictures taken by military photographers at Dover.
"I felt these images were the single most important way that the American people could see the cost of war," he said.
Controversy in America over photos of war dead goes back as far as the earliest battlefield photography, said David Perlmutter, a documentary photographer and journalism professor at the University of Kansas.
Photography pioneer Matthew Brady was believed to have arranged battlefield death scenes during America's bloody mid-19th century Civil War. During World War I much of the coverage of the war was censored, as it was in World War II before President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided the public needed to see how its soldiers were suffering to avoid complacency.
Vietnam brought the war home, however, in new ways, as television film footage caught the daily grind and blood of war. The coverage was blamed in part for the loss of public support.

Photographs of war dead are a source of such debate because Americans "are most concerned about what happens to our men and women in uniform above all other considerations," Perlmutter said.
An issue in Afghanistan?
The issue could come into play for Obama. Though deaths in Iraq are down, the new president plans to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, which could mean a steady number of soldier's bodies coming back through Dover in transfer cases.
Journalists should be thoughtful if the ban is overturned and avoid excessive coverage, said Kelly McBride, an ethics expert at the Poynter Institute journalism think tank.
"The temptation is that because we can, we will," she said. Journalists, excited by the access, could jump at the new opportunity to take photos and release a flood of images that might exaggerate the number of deaths, she said.
"It would be possible to have more coffin photos than homecoming photos, when the reality is that there are more live bodies coming home than dead bodies," she said. "There is an obligation to tell the truth in as complete and full a picture as possible, and coffin photos are part of that."
According to an informal survey of its members by the group Families United, which says it represents 60,000 military families, a majority opposed changing the policy.
John Ellsworth, the group's vice president whose son was killed in Iraq in 2004, argued that if Obama chooses to reverse the ban, he should have the military take photographs and release them to the families, who could then decide whether they want to share them with the media, or see them at all.
"I don't know what happened in Iraq, or at Dover," he said. "There are blank spots where I don't know what happened, but I don't know if I need to."




 

Facts About The New World Order

There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world’s wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda. Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world’s population by 5.5 Billion people. While the name New World Order is a term frequently used today when referring to this group, it’s more useful to identify the principal organizations, institutions, and individuals who make up this vast interlocking spiderweb of elite conspirators.
The Illuminati is the oldest term commonly used to refer to the 13 bloodline families (and their offshoots) that make up a major portion of this controlling elite. Most members of the Illuminati are also members in the highest ranks of numerous secretive and occult societies which in many cases extend straight back into the ancient world. The upper levels of the tightly compartmentalized (need-to-know-basis) Illuminati structural pyramid include planning committees and organizations that the public has little or no knowledge of. The upper levels of the Illuminati pyramid include secretive committees with names such as: the Council of 3, the Council of 5, the Council of 7, the Council of 9, the Council of 13, the Council of 33, the Grand Druid Council, the Committee of 300 (also called the “Olympians”) and the Committee of 500 among others.
In 1992, Dr John Coleman published  Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the Illuminati agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows:
“A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.
There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of  laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited.”
The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. Author and de-programmer Fritz Springmeier (The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines ) says that most people have built in “slides” that short circuit the mind’s critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics. “Slides”, Springmeier reports, is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person’s thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand. For example, the mention of the word “conspiracy” often solicits a slide response with many people. (Springmeier has co-authored three books on trauma-based programming which detail how the Illuminati employs highly tuned and extrememly sophisticated Mind Control (MC) training programs that begin the programming process while the intended victim is still within the womb. Mind Control is a much greater problem than most people realize. According to Cisco Wheeler, a former Illuminati mind control programmer, there are 10 million people who have been programmed as mind controlled slaves using trauma-based MC programs with names like Monarch and MK Ultra. The newer, non-trauma, electronic means of MC programming that grew out of the Montauk Project, may include millions more. Al Bielek, who played a principle role in the development of the Montauk Project, said that there likely 10 million victims of Montauk style mind control programming worldwide, the majority located in the USA. He also said that there are covert Montauk Programming ‘Centers’ in every major city in the U.S. )
What most Americans believe to be “Public Opinion” is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public’s acceptance of the Illuminati’s planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells the Illuminati that the programing is “taking”, while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or “tweak” the programming until the desired response is achieved. While the thrust and content of the propaganda is decided at Tavistock, implementation of the propaganda is executed in the United States by well over 200 ‘think tanks’ such as the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institute which are overseen and directed by the top NWO mind control organization in the United States, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California.
The NWO global conspirators manifest their agenda through the skillful manipulation of human emotions, especially fear. In the past centuries, they have repeatedly utilized a contrivance that NWO researcher and author David Icke has characterized in his latest book, The Biggest Secret, as ProblemReaction, and Solution.
The technique is as follows: Illuminati strategists create the Problem- by funding , assembling, and training an “opposition” group to stimulate turmoil in an established political power (sovereign country, region, continent, etc.) that they wish to impinge upon and thus create opposing factions in a conflict that the Illuminati themselves maneuvered into existence. In recent decades, so called “opposition” groups are usually identified in the media as ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘liberators’ (recently the KLA-Kosovo Liberation Army).
At the same time, the leader of the established political power where the conflict is being orchestrated is demonized and, on cue, referred to as ‘another Hitler’ (take your pick: Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Kadaffi, etc.). The ‘freedom fighters’ are not infrequently assembled from a local criminal element (i.e. KLA, drug traffickers). In the spirit of true Machiavellian deceit, the same NWO strategists are equally involved incovertly arming and advising the leader of the established power as well (the Illuminati always profits from any armed conflict by loaning money, arming, and supplying all parties involved in a war).
The conflict is drawn to the world stage by the controlled  media outlets with a barrage of photos and video tape reports of horrific and bloody atrocities suffered by innocent civilians. The cry goes up “Something has to be done!” And That is the desired Reaction (note: the  same technique is presently being used to bring about gun control in the United States).
The NWO puppeteers then provide the Solution by sending in UN ‘Peace Keepers’ (Bosnia) or a UN ‘Coalition Force’ (Gulf War) or NATO Bombers and then ground troops (Kosovo). Once installed, the ‘peace keepers’ never leave (Bosnia, Kosovo).  The idea is to have NWO controlled ground troops in all major countries or strategic areas where significant resistance to the New World Order takeover is likely to be encountered.
East Timor, Indosnesia. (9/14/99) Virtually , the same strategy used to occupy Kosovo with UN/NATO troops was applied by the NWO manipulators to take military control of  East Timor. Once again, the same morality play is trotted out for public consumption: the local evil and demonic Indonesian Army trained militias responsible for the slaughter of innocent civilians following the August 30 vote for Independence (from Indonesian control), must be stopped at all costs. This time, Australia (to keep up the appearance of an ‘international’ humantarian effort) will lead the charge with ‘peacekeeping’ troops. Of course, it didn’t take long for Madeline Albright to announce that US ‘support assets’ will be part of the “UN Peacekeeping Team”. In a  front page story in the LA Times (9/13/99), Mike Jendrzejczyk of Human Rights Watch(an Illuminati front group) in Washington DC  said that it’s “crucial” that “peacekeepers have the authority to disarm militia forces and any Indonesian soldiers actively working with them”. ]
The local, sovereign military force is either defeated (i.e. Yugoslavia) or, as in the case of the United States itself, replaced by foreign UN “Partnership For Peace” (PFP) troops who take over the jobs of  US soldiers who have been sent overseas on  ‘peacekeeping’ missions. In addition to being killed in ground conflicts on foreign soil, US military forces will likely be reduced in the next few years through disease induced attrition (i.e. from mandatory Anthrax Vaccinations required of all US military personnel). These vaccinations will, in all probability, eventually produce the symptoms of the so-called Gulf War Illness,which was acquired by a certain percentage of Gulf War soldiers who were given a “special” anthrax vaccine (intended by the Illuminati/CIA as a test run to ascertain how quickly (and fatally) the disease would progress with a substantial population of healthy young men and women).
The corporate portion of the NWO pyramid seems to be dominated by international bankers and the big pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations. The Royal Family of England, namely Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor, (who are, in fact, descendants of the German arm of European Royalty -the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family-changed the name to Windsor in 1914 ), are high level players, along with the British oligarchy which controls the upper strata of the Illuminati. The decision making Illuminati nerve centers of  this effort are in the London (especially the City of London), Basel Switzerland, and Brussels (NATO headquarters).

WHICH SENATORS GOT PAID OFF TO SUPPORT S.510 – THE ‘FOOD AUSTERITY ACT ?

The following is a list of U.S Senators and the Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that these Senators received from Special Interest Groups to either support or oppose S.510 – The FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act. I have listed the names of the Senators, the Party and State, and the amount of Special Interest Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that they received:


Name of Senator – Party & State – Bribe For S.510 or Bribe Against S.510
Daniel Akaka – D HI – Bribe For: $27,690 – Against: $700
Lamar Alexander – R TN – Bribe For: $190,421 – Against: $4,850
John Barrasso – R WY – For: $31,350 – Against: $27,500
Max Baucus – D MT – Bribe for: $123,803 – Against: $55,980
Evan Bayh – D IN – Bribe For: $45,200 – Against: 8,250
Mark Begich - D AK - Bribe For: $23,050 – Against: $2,000
Michael Bennet – D CO – Bribe For: $38,509 – Against: $22,050
Robert Bennett – R UT – Bribe For: $105,530 – Against: $10,000
Jeff Bingaman – D NM – Bribe For: $31,498 – Against: $8,450
Christopher Bond – R MO – Bribe For: $49,550 – Against: $5,200
Barbara Boxer – D CA – Bribe For: $120,000 – Against: $13,650
Sherrod Brown – D OH – Bribe For: $57,800 – Against: $6,600
Samuel Brownback – R KS – Bribe For: $20,950 – Against: $13,500
Jim Bunning - R KY - Bribe For: $20,700 – Against: $2,000
Richard Burr – R NC – Bribe For: $328,086 – Against: $32,292
Roland Burris – D IL – Bribe For: $0 – Against: $0
Maria Cantwell – D WA – Bribe For: $93,541 – Against: $2,750
Benjamin Cardin – D MD – Bribe For: $72,200 – Against: $0
Thomas Carper – D DE – Bribe For: $83,150 – Against: $0
Robert Casey – D PA – Bribe For: $80,576 – Against: $4,600
Saxby Chambliss – R GA – Bribe For: $557,694 – Against: $108,041
Thomas Coburn R OK – Bribe For: $64,400 – Against: $14,200
Thad Cochran – R MS – Bribe For: $50,144 – Against: $22,000
Susan Collins – R ME – Bribe For: $157,438 – Against: $7,800
Kent Conrad – D ND – Bribe For: $41,650 – Against: $29,612
Bob Corker – R TN – Bribe For: $298,639 – Against: $8,850
John Cornyn – R TX – Bribe For: $286,648 – Against: $254,730
Michael Crapo – R ID – Bribe For: $64,199 – Against: $14,350
Jim DeMint – R SC – Bribe For: $149,935 – Against: $5,000
Christopher Dodd – D CT – Bribe For: $36,400 – Against: $4,500
Byron Dorgan – D ND – Bribe For: $28,200 – Against: $6,000
Richard Durbin – D IL – Bribe For: $151,050 – Against: $19,000
John Ensign – R NV – Bribe For: $76,297 – Against: $10,500
Michael Enzi – R WY – Bribe For: $87,394 – Against: $21,450
Russell Feingold – D WI – Bribe For: $53,854 – Against: $2,200
Dianne Feinstein – D CA – Bribe For: $168,189 – Against: 25,314
Kirsten Gillibrand – D NY – Bribe For: $98,210 – Against: $10,650
Lindsey Graham – R SC – Bribe For: $101,272 – Against: $5,700
Charles Grassley – R IA -  For: $112,150 – Against: $25,500
Judd Gregg – R NH – Bribe For: $26,000 – Against: $0
Kay Hagan – D NC – Bribe For: $36,250 – Against: $3,500
Thomas Harkin – D IA – Bribe For: $138,135 – Against: $40,600
Orrin Hatch – R UT – Bribe For: $102,215 – Against: $11,600
Kay Hutchison – R TX – Bribe For: $127,811 – Against: $103,386
James Inhofe – R OK – Bribe For: $66,744 – Against: $36,430
Daniel Inouye – D HI – Bribe For: $26,350 – Against: $11,200
John Isakson – R GA – Bribe For: $280,995 – Against: $10,100
Mike Johanns – R NE – Bribe For: $159,259 – Against: $59,785
Tim Johnson – D SD – Bribe For: $26,850 – Against: $15,000
Edward Kaufman – D DE – Bribe For: $0 – Against: $0
John Kerry – D MA – Bribe For: $14,406 – Against: $250
Amy Klobuchar – D MN – Bribe For: $149,778 – Against: $16,250
Herbert Kohl – D WI – Bribe For: $300 – Against: $0
Jon Kyl – R AZ – Bribe For: $363,660 – Against: $58,906
Mary Landrieu – D LA – Bribe For: $73,622 – Against: $2,250
Frank Lautenberg - D NJ – Bribe For: $37,883 – against: $3,550
Patrick Leahy – D VT – Bribe For: $13,800 – Against: $2,750
Carl Levin – D MI – Bribe For: $49,900 – Against: $2,000
Joseph Lieberman – I CT – Bribe For: $121,075 – Against: $0
Blanche Lincoln – D AR – Bribe For: $347,526 – Against: $125,297
Richard Lugar – R IN – Bribe For: $153,579 – Against: $21,000
John McCain – R AZ – Bribe For: $118,070 – Against: $21,525
Claire McCaskill – D MO – Bribe For: $48,950 – Against: $7,650
Mitch McConnell – R KY – Bribe For: $439,593 – Against: $42,244
Robert Menéndez – D NJ – Bribe For: $183,850 – Against: $250
Jeff Merkley – D OR – Bribe For: $27,350 – Against; $3,300
Barbara Mikulski – D MD – Bribe For: $52,165 – Against: $1,000
Lisa Murkowski – R AK – Bribe For: $164,713 – Against: $5,800
Patty Murray – D WA – Bribe For: $136,500 – Against: $3,150
Ben Nelson – D NE – Bribe For: $254,906 – Against: $44,950
Bill Nelson – D FL – Bribe For: $205,471 – Against: $35,748
Mark Pryor – D AR – Bribe For: $115,550 – Against: $16,565
John Reed – D RI – Bribe For: $29,350 – Against: $0
Harry Reid – D NV – Bribe For: $133,985 – Against: $10,000
James Risch – R ID – Bribe For: $56,750 – Against; $36,050
Pat Roberts – R KS – Bribe For: $167,294 – Against: $65,186
John Rockefeller – D WV – Bribe For: $21,250 – Against: $1,000
Bernard Sanders – I VT – Bribe For: $7,800 – Against: $4,200
Charles Schumer – D NY – Bribe For: $175,185 – Against: $14,200
Jefferson Sessions – R AL – Bribe For: $65,303 – Against: $16,800
Jeanne Shaheen – D NH – Bribe For: $17,090 – Against: $7,300
Richard Shelby – R AL – Bribe For: $73,616 – Against: $10,000
Olympia Snowe – R ME – Bribe For: $78,136 – Against: $2,000
Arlen Specter – D PA – Bribe For: $209,124 – Against: $9,400
Debbie Ann Stabenow – D MI – Bribe For: $84,941 – Against: $14,482
Jon Tester – D MT – Bribe For: $21,250 – Against: $61,550
John Thune – R SD – Bribe For: $218,900 – Against: $55,625
Mark Udall – D CO – Bribe For: $34,435 – Against: $45,050
Tom Udall – D NM – Bribe For: $27,102 – Against: $51,900
David Vitter – R LA – Bribe For: $188,225 – Against: $8,500
George Voinovich – R OH – Bribe For: $103,850 – Against: $185
Mark Warner – D VA – Bribe For: $116,450 – Against: $8,600
Jim Webb – D VA – Bribe For: $25,300 – Against: $7,700
Sheldon Whitehouse- D RI – Bribe For: $27,025 – Against: $1,500
Roger Wicker – R MS – Bribe For: $147,650 – Against: $16,250
Ron Wyden – D OR – Bribe For: $58,700 – Against: $4,900
Here’s a list of the Special Interest Groups that support S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:
Restaurants & drinking establishments $3,217,767
Food and kindred products manufacturing $1,753,503
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Food stores $1,473,532
Beverages (non-alcoholic) $744,551
Vegetables, fruits and tree nut $709,238
Veterinarians $551,750
Beverage bottling & distribution $289,725
Food wholesalers $284,900
Food & Beverage Products and Services $281,137
Fishing $277,984
Chambers of commerce $219,234
Manufacturing $207,740
Food catering & food services $171,835
Confectionery processors & manufacturers $96,438
Consumer groups $6,100
Farm bureaus $0
Here’s a list of Here’s a list of the Special Interest Groups that supposed S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Livestock $1,561,207
Farm organizations & cooperatives $412,976
Consumer groups $6,100
Farmers, crop unspecified $0

TREASON: Nancy Pelosi ~ “Our aim is to disarm the Americans and let them fall back to sleep.”

Why is there any surprise in America that the Cold War never really ended?
When the Soviet Union collapsed on its own misery, Communism struck out for greener pastures in the West.  And you can’t get anymore “West” than America.
A place in the sun was being prepared in America for Mikhail Gorbachev, even before he abandoned ship.
This is what Gorbachev told the Politburo in 1989: “Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years.  These are primarily for outward consumption.  There will be no significant change in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our aim is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” (Italics CFP’s).
And disarming America is precisely what Gorbachev went on to successfully do.

It’s not as if if Gorbachev faded into the woodwork after his well celebrated arrival in America.  To this day,  he’s an active member of the Maurice Strong, George Soros triumvirate pulling the puppet strings of President Barack Obama.
No one eased the path for Gorbachev’s agenda to close federal military bases around the U.S. more than Nancy Pelosi.
“Pelosi’s involvement in the disposal of federal military surplus land is matched only by Gorbachev, who as founder of Green Cross International (GCI) devised a mechanism for converting American military bases to civilian uses converting the bases over to “global centers for sustainability.” (Canada Free Press, Nov. 15, 2006).
During her Presidio stint, it is alleged that she was an investor in a real estate investment called Presidio Partners.
Gorby hit the ground running upon his arrival in America.  His mission of converting American military bases to global centers for sustainability came just two years after he resigned as president of the Soviet Union on Dec. 25, 1991.
CGI built on the 1992 Earth Summit in rio de Janeiro and supported the implementation of the Summit’s Agenda 21.

It was Nancy Pelosi who patiently shepherded Agenda 21 through Congress.  On March 29, 1993, she introduced a joint resolution (H.J. RES166) to renew the call for the United States to “assume a strong leadership role in implementing Agenda 21 and other Summit agreements”, eventually gathering 67 co-sponsors for her bill, roughly 30 of whom are still in Congress to the present day.
In a speech entitled “From Swords to Plowshares”, delivered in the House of Representatives on June 4, 1992, Pelosi cheered the arrival of Gorbachev to San Francisco’s Presidio as a tenant.
“The National Park Service is actively seeking ideas for programs and tenants at this spectacular site.  Last month, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev visited the Presidio to propose that the Gorbachev Foundation/use be located at the Presidio when the army leaves.  In his words, `it is wonderful and symbolic that a military base is being converted for use by the people’.”
“As the cold war ends,” Pelosi continued, “it is, indeed, fitting that this army garrison—one of the oldest in the United States—will be transformed to a monument of peace, environmental preservation and recreation as a global park.”
Less than a year after Pelosi’s fawning words, Gorbachev and his 100% American, pre-funded $3.5 million Gorbachev Foundation moved into a white, shingled bayfront house at the historical Presidio overlooking the Golden Bridge.

This anti-American activist ‘PELOSI’ in office was one of Gorbachev’s most useful idiots as far back as 1992.


Now we find that the S.V.R., the successor to the Soviet K.G.B. planted Russian spies in the United States to gather information and recruit more agents.
“On Monday, federal prosecutors accused 11people of being part of a Russian espionage ring, living under false names and deep cover in a patient scheme to penetrate what one coded message called American “policy making circles”. (The New York Times, June 28, 2010).
Al Qaeda-like,  the Russian spies had lived for more than a decade in American cities and suburbs from Seattle to New York, “where they seemed to be ordinary couples working ordinary jobs, chatting to the neighbors about schools and apologizing for noisy teenagers”.
The enemy among us, it seems, just came crashing through all conspiracy theories.
The easy road to America for the Russian spy ring busted by the FBI was paved long ago by the likes of Nancy Pelosi.
Is'nt treason punished with hanging ?
Tags: http://newworldorderresistanc

Codex Alimentarius/Senate S.510 was created in 1962 as a trade Commission by the UN-Wake Up Americans !

Codex Alimentarius was created in 1962 as a trade Commission by the UN to control the international trade of food. Its initial intentions may have been altruistic but it has been taken over by corporate interests, most notably the pharmaceutical, pesticide, biotechnology and chemical industries.If you want to have a garden without potential Government interference shutting out and possibly arresting you read and heed this article.Once this act passes the Senate (it did) the new created Food Safety Association (FSA) will be the sole regulator of food safety and take away the rights of each state to regulate their food safety measures. This act will grant the FSA “the power to implement and administer a national system for regular unannounced inspection of food establishments under its own terms, those terms set forth by the UN. This is all part of the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS started in 1963.
This allows the FSA to reclassify all farms as “food production facilities”. This means that small patch of tomatoes or your neighbor’s wheat farm will have to comply with the regulations and inspection protocols of the FSA and will have to comply with food safety requirements they see fit. Your small patch of tomatoes, if you plan to sell them at the farmer’s market or even give away could be regulated by the FSA.
The act will also require farmers to comply with minimum standards created by the FSA for all farming practices, which can include requiring all farmers to create Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point plans and other written credentials. This act will give the power to “arrogate preventative process controls to reduce adulteration of food” as they see fit. Along with this, the FSA will have the power to enforce food safety laws, to access civil fines and penalties for those not complying with all safety laws created by the FSA. The fines and penalties can be as much as $1 million per violation. The money received by the FSA for violations can be used to “carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law” as they deem necessary.
If you are already apprised of this bill and  it’s egregious control, contact/arrest your Senator now.

Illinois Senator Dicky Durbin should Be In Prison

Mr. Durbin's reputation is mixed. While sitting behind the dais of the Judiciary Committee three years ago, another Republican counsel asked several of us which of the Judiciary senators, on either side, would we want as our lawyer if our lives depended on it? We all agreed: Dick Durbin. Not even the slick John Edwards of North Carolina wooed us. Mr. Edwards, we agreed, was not as "ruthless" as Mr. Durbin.

Months later I asked a senior Republican senator what he thought of Mr. Durbin. "He is the most insipid man in the Senate," the Republican replied, without any hesitation.
As the second highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin is in the spotlight as never before, and the country is now seeing that he is, indeed, both ruthless and insipid. In June, after wilting public scrutiny that included calls for his resignation, Mr. Durbin was forced to his knees and a near-tearful apology on the floor of the Senate after he compared American servicemen to Nazis, Soviets and the Khmer Rouge.
This came only days after the Washington Post revealed that Mr. Durbin, one of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's harshest critics in a travel-related ethics controversy, was one of the most frequent congressional beneficiaries of international junkets. Mr. Durbin's communications director, Joe Shoemaker, admitted that Mr. Durbin had failed to report a trip to Asia he said was paid by a nonprofit group. Then it turned out that the junket's deep pockets, Results, identifies itself as a political lobbying organization with ties to MoveOn.org's radical financier, George Soros.

Mr. Durbin has already found himself embroiled in controversy over Judge Roberts. In late July law professor Jonathan Turley wrote in the Los Angeles Times that in the nominee's courtesy meeting with Mr. Durbin, the senator asked Judge Roberts "what he would do if the law required a ruling that [the Catholic Church] considers immoral." According to Mr. Turley, his sources--one of whom turned out to be Mr. Durbin himself--said that Judge Roberts "answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself."
The reaction from those, like me, who have long accused Democrats of imposing a constitutionally prohibited religious test was immediate, restrained only by disbelief that Mr. Durbin would do something so flagrant yet again. In 2003 Mr. Durbin joined other Democrats in mocking judicial nominee Leon Holmes of Arkansas, a Catholic, for his personal religious views on sex roles and marriage. He blocked Mr. Holmes from getting a Senate vote for over a year. Then Mr. Durbin joined Democrats in blocking judicial nominee William Pryor, another devout Catholic, for Pryor's "deeply held beliefs."
When voices of all faiths, including the Uni0n of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, joined to complain and ads ran under the old banner "Catholics Need Not Apply," Mr. Durbin argued that he could hardly be accused of antireligious bigotry being a Catholic himself. This brought a near ex cathedra rebuke from Denver's Catholic archbishop, the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, in words not heard from any Catholic bishop before or after:

At a minimum, Catholic members of Congress like Senator Durbin should actually read and pray over the Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . before they explain the Catholic faith to anyone. They might even try doing something about their "personal opposition" to abortion by supporting competent pro-life judicial appointments. Otherwise, they simply prove what many people already believe--that a new kind of religious discrimination is very welcome at the Capitol, even among elected officials who claim to be Catholic.Some things change, and some things don't. The bias against "papism" is alive and well in America. It just has a different address.
With outrage like that, Mr. Durbin might have thought twice about raising John Roberts's faith in any way. And a quick denial came from Mr. Durbin's press secretary, Joe Shoemaker. Mr. Turley responded that he has a tape recording of Mr. Shoemaker to prove the accuracy of his reporting.
What is not clear is whether Mr. Durbin actually asked Judge Roberts about how his Catholic faith would affect his ability to judge or, as Stephen Spruiell speculated on National Review Online, if Mr. Durbin gave Mr. Turley misinformation intended to harm Judge Roberts with conservative supporters. There is a third possibility: that Mr. Durbin used Mr. Turley to launch a public debate that Mr. Durbin thinks is worth having and that liberal journalists and Catholic politicians like Mario Cuomo have taken up with gusto.

Global Imperialism / Blood For Oil /Or Spreading Democracy ? You Decide

The aim of this paper is to investigate the development of the Iraqi oil industry between 1914 and 1982. This will entail a survey:' Iraq's relations with Western oil companies, its role within OPEC, its involvement in the Middle Eastern arena, and its domestic politics.
Emphasis will be placed on the evolution of what is today called the Iraqi Petroleum Company against the background of these other developments. Over time, the general trend discerned is one:-: increasing nationalization of oil production, the extent of which -' determined by internal, regional, and global circumstances.
Iraq is situated in southwest Asia. It is bordered by Iran to the east, Syria to the northwest, Jordan to the west, Turkey to the north, Saudi Arabia to the south and southwest, and Kuwait to the southeast It is almost twice the size of Great Britain - about 170,000 square miles.
Modem Iraq is largely a product of British policy in the first half of this century. Following the defeat of Ottoman Turkey in the First World War, Iraq was formed out of three willayetes (regions) of the Ottoman. Empire - Baghdad, Basra and Mosul. The first two regions were Arab by race, culture and speech. However Mosul, the oil rich region in the north, differed from the other two in terms of its history culture and speech. Until 1926, it was uncertain whether or not the Mosul region would remain in Iraq. The Turks agreed to its incorporation into the state of Iraq in the treaty of Ankara in 1926. After twelve years of British mandatory rule, Iraq was granted independence in 1932 but remained linked to Britain by a treaty.
In July 1958 the monarchy was overthrown by Abd al Karim Al-Qasim who established a republic regime in its place.
Since 1958, there have been four military take-over and eight major changes of government, the most recent in 1979 when Saddam Hussein(And The CIA) came to power.
1959 Saddam Hussein, 22-year old Ba'th Party member, flees Baghdad for Damascus and Cairo after involvement in an assassination attempt against Qasim. Cairo is then center of the Nasserite Pan-Arab ideology girding the Ba'th Party.
POST-WAR IRAQ, 1945-58
From 1945 to 1950, no major changes occurred in relationship between the government of Iraq and the IPC. Production amounted to 4.7 million tons in 1946 and 1947. In 1948, Iraq entered the war against the newly established state of Israel; thus embarking upon a new stage of Iraq's involvement in Arab politics. The fact that Israel was supported by Britain and the US left the majority of Iraqis with anti-British and anti-American feelings. As we shall see, this fact had a major impact on relations between Iraq and IPC.
On August 10, 1950, a new agreement was reached between Iraq and IPC.
The agreement provided for an increase in Iraqi royalties from 4s to 6s per ton, while Iraqi oil exports were raised from 6 million tons in 1950 to 18 million tons in 1954.
However, in 1951 the Iraqi government signed a new agreement with IPC and its associates, MPC and BPC. The 1951 agreement, which was ratified by the Iraqi Chamber of Deputies on February 14, 1952, stipulated the following:
1. Iraq was supposed to receive 50 percent of the company's profits
(Before payment of foreign taxes);
2. An annual minimum output of 22 million tons of crude oil was to be maintained from the Iraqi and the Mosul companies as of 1954;
3. Iraqi revenues were to increase according to present prices and costs, and the Iraqi government preserved the right to request similar payments paid to other producing governments;
4. The companies were to supply the government's refinery with all crude oil requirements at a fixed price for local consumption;
5. The companies were to appoint a number of Iraqis as directors of their boards; and
6. The companies would pay the Iraqi government an annual sum of 8 million British pounds for two years should production ceases.
In 1954, the companies completed the construction of the Kirkuk (Iraq) - Banias (Syria) pipeline. The pipeline, stretching 556 miles long and costing 42 million pounds, was to convey 14 million tons a year from northern Iraq to the Mediterranean, in addition to another 8 million tons carried by pipelines running from Kirkuk to the Tripoli terminal in Lebanon.
In 1955, IPC and its associate companies signed a new agreement with the Iraqi government.
The new agreement retained the 50-50 profit sharing arrangement included in the 1951 agreement. However, it amended the formula for calculating prices, the net result being an increase in the Iraqi government's royalties by about 7s per ton.
Iraqi officials estimated that Iraq's oil revenues in 1955 would be 72 million British pounds and that by 1958; revenues would exceed 100 million pounds.
In 1954, production amounted to 30 million tons, and rose to 32.7 in 1955. Due to the Suez Crisis, production fell temporarily to 30.6 million tons in (1956) then to 21.36 million tons in 1957, but regained a level of 34.93 million tons in 1958 followed by 40.9 million tons in 1959. These fluctuations in oil production were rooted in the regional turbulence of the 1950s, notably Iraq's role in inter-Arab politics.
After the establishment of the Arab League in 1945, Egypt began to participate in internal Arab affairs, thus reducing Iraq's influence in inter-Arab relations.
Iraq's position was further weakened by Syria's move towards closer co-operation with Egypt.
In the mid 1950s, Iraq signed the "Baghdad Pact," an alliance which consisted of Britain, Iran and Turkey which was supported by the US.
This move by Iraq indicated that Iraq was seeking allies outside the Arab World in order to counteract Egypt's leadership. This pro-Western Iraqi policy aroused Iraqi nationalist groups who were dissatisfied with the West's stand regarding the Palestinian problem.
The joint British-French-Israeli attack on Egypt and the Suez Canal in November 1956 was a turning point in Egypt's Arab policy.
The indignation in the Arab World was so powerful that even leaders friendly to the West, like Nuri Sa'id of Iraq, had to express verbal support for Egypt.
In Syria, the nationalists blew up the IPC pipelines that passed through Syrian territory. Both the interruption of oil supplies from Iraq and Saudi Arabia's refusal to export her oil in British and French tankers meant that the two supply channels which together provided 90 percent of Western Europe's oil (7.7 million tons per month) were halted.
This interruption created severe financial difficulties for the Iraqi government. In March of 1957, IPC granted Iraq an interest-free advance on future royalties of 25 million pounds in order to help the government. Syria agreed to allow IPC to repair the pipeline after the latter paid transit dues amounting to 5 million pounds. Oil production was resumed in March 1957.
REVOLUTIONS AND THEIR AFTERMATH, 1958-68
In July 1958, the monarchy was overthrown and a republican regime was established in its place. The revolution put an end to the six-month-old merger between Jordan and Iraq.
Brigadier Qasim and his revolutionary council were well aware of the fact that they needed the oil revenues, hence nationalization seemed impractical.
Accordingly, it was agreed that IPC and its associates should be asked to increase production by assuring the companies of the revolutionary council's intentions to respect the oil agreement.
It was not until 1961 that the new Iraqi regime - now a member of OPEC - made a major decision that affected IPC. The former concession that had been granted to IPC and its associates covered almost the whole of the country. In December 1961, Qasim introduced "Law 80" which was designed to dispossess the oil companies of all land that was not used for oil production.
When the law was enforced, it dispossessed the companies of 99.5 percent of the area in which they had held prospecting rights under the former oil agreement.
The companies reacted only by registering their protest on the matter; oil production continued as before.
In 1960, production stood at 47.5 million tons then rose to a stable level of 49 million tons for 1961 and for 1962.
Among the other points of disagreement between Qasim and IPC were the Iraqi demands to increase the government's share of profits and to allow the government 20 percent participation share of the company.
IPC rejected both demands on the grounds that they were contrary to the terms of the agreement, and that any revision would raise complex problem vis-a-vis other companies and oil producing nations.
With the announcement of "Law 80" came the establishment of the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). The main task for INOC was the development of the ex-IPC areas.
The Company was interested, as were other national companies in the Middle East, in forming partnership companies with foreign concerns such as American Indepen­dents, ENI and other French companies. In 1965, the company was authorized to take over internal refining and distributing functions.
Qasim's regime was overthrown in 1963, and his predecessor, Abd al-Salam Arif, seemed likely to promote a more reasonable atmosphere. In May 1964, negotiations between the new-"Arif" regime and IPC began and continued until June 1965.
The negotiations covered all the points of dispute that had accumulated over the years. Both sides found it difficult to compromise.
The government could not easily repudiate the principle of "Law 80," because it might arouse public suspicion that the new regime was prepared to be an "instrument of the West." Nevertheless, a settlement was reached in 1965, which provided mainly for the following:
1. The parties settled for 50-50 shares of profit, and the companies agreed to restrict their right of exploration and production
to a total of 3,873 square kilometers (the producing area of Iraq).
2. The parties agreed that 32,000 square kilometers would be assigned under a joint venture in which INOC would be the largest shareholder with 33.5 percent interest.
In April 1966, President Abd al-Salam Arif died in a helicopter crash and was replaced by his brother Abd al-Rahman Arif.
The Arab defeat in 1967 created a new atmosphere among the Iraqi nationalists, who demanded that the oil industry be nationalized in retaliation for Western policies towards Israel.
In response, the Iraqi government suspended the pumping of all oil to Mediterranean terminals and broke off diplomatic relations with Britain and the US.
Although the ban on oil exports was lifted a month after the war, the Iraqi government implemented the principles embodied in "Law 80," and passed two new oil laws. The first, "Law 97," prohibited IPC from returning to any area which had been relinquished by "Law 80." Secondly, "Law 123" provided for the restructuring of INOC and further authorized it to begin exploring the relinquished area.
Thus immediately the door was open for foreign companies to compete with IPC, and negotiations with French and Soviet delegations began in early 1968.
In February 1968, an agreement was signed between the Iraqi government and the French state-owned ELF-ERAP. Under this agreement ELF-ERAP was granted prospecting rights against the payment of US$15 million in about 4,000 square miles of land and off-shore areas formerly held by the IPC in which oil had not been discovered.
The prospecting rights were for a period of six years, followed by a 20 year exploitation period during which half of any discoveries would be retained by Iraq.
When commercial production began, INOC would assume complete control of operations and the French company would assist INOC with marketing.
In return, ELF-ERAP would be permitted to purchase 30 percent of the output at preferential rates.
In a further move, the Iraqi government signed an agreement with the Soviet Union in June 1969.
The Soviets agreed to supply Iraq with equipment, technical assistance and loans for development of its oil reserves. In return, the Iraqi government agreed to repay the Soviets in the form of oil deliveries.
The agreement with the Soviet Union was a clear_ indication that the Iraqis were seeking alternatives to the West for aid, and it also demonstrated that the Soviet Union was capable of offering technical help in the oil industry.
THE RULE OF THE BA'ATH; 1968-80
In the summer of 1968, Arif's regime was overthrown by a military coup led by two officers from the Ba'ath party, Ahmad al-Bakr and Saddam Hussein. Before the Ba'ath came to power in 1968, they had called for nationalization of the oil industry.
Ever since Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, nationalization of oil had become a popular demand in the Arab World. The Ba'ath party had repeatedly emphasized its intentions to nationalize the oil industry.
Once in power, the Ba'ath began to realize the oil industry's complexity and the difficulties involved in nationalization. Consequently, they decided to proceed step by step towards their objective of nationalizing IPC.
Between 1969 and 1972, Iraq signed agreements with several foreign countries in order to provide Iraq with the capital and the know-how needed for oil exploration. In 1972, the Iraqi Oil Tankers Company (IPTC) was established to deliver oil to countries that entered into agreements to purchase oil from Iraq.
These agreements, which relieved Iraq from dependence on foreign companies, made it possible for foreign countries to purchase oil directly from Iraq. Despite its success, the Iraqi government did not nationalize IPC and decided to enter into a series of negotiations.
In 1971, IPC produced all of Iraq's oil with an output of 83.7 million tons. Meanwhile by 1972, the concept of participation had become very popular in the Middle East. Sheikh Yemeni was negotiating with the oil companies on behalf of the Gulf States.
The negotiations culminated with the 1972 participation agreement which provided the Gulf States with an immediate 25 percent ownership of oil operations.
In Iraq, however, negotiations between Iraq and IPC became deadlocked over several issues.
The Iraqis sought higher revenues, participation in the concession and higher production levels.
They also charged that the companies were restricting production in order to punish Iraq for the laws it had introduced in the 1960s.
In May 1972, the IPC offered to raise production from 1.2 million barrels a day in 1972 to 1.7 million barrels a day in 1973, 2.0, in 1974, and 3.0 in 1977. IPC also included claims for compensation terms under which it would receive 7 percent of all oil produced by INOC on the fields nationalized in 1961. The Iraqi government rejected this offer on the grounds that it did not respond. to Iraq's minimum legitimate claims.
On June 1, 1972, President Bakr of Iraq announced the nationalization of IPC's oil concession and installations. However, no mention was made of the two IPC associates, BPC and MPC. The Iraqi government explained their decision not to nationalize BPC and MPC by stating that it was not in Iraq's national interest to nationalize all foreign oil holdings at once.
Thus the 1972 nationalization measures affected only the Kirkuk field. IPC was legally responsible for Kirkuk production which amounted to 2.3 million barrels a day in early 1972, and which supplied oil to its Mediterranean terminals at Tripoli (Lebanon) and Banias (Syria).
The other major Iraqi oil fields, the Basrah field (production of 675,000 barrels a day), operated by BPC and the Mosul field (production of 25,000 barrel a day), operated by MPC, and were not included in the nationalization measures.
The instrument of nationalization was "law 69" of June 1, 1972. The Law stated that the nationalization covered the areas delineated by "law 80" of December 1961, and established a new state company, the Iraqi Company for Oil Operations, to take charge of the management of funds, assets and rights of IPC.
The Syrian government also announced on June 1, 1972, that it had nationalized the IPC's pipeline and terminal installations on its territory and a new Syrian Company, the Syrian Company for Oil Transport, was established to manage the facilities.
The British government, which had no diplomatic relations at the time with either country, regretted the nationalization measures and asked both governments to compensate IPC for its nationalized interests. That was as much as the British could do.
The days of foreign control, exemplified by the case of Mossadeq in 1951 (the prime minister who nationalized Iran's oil industry and was. then overthrown by an American-sponsored coup), had long ended.
The oil producing countries demonstrated their independence decisively by creating nationalized companies which could hold their own in the oil business.
At the time of nationalization, Britain depended on Iraq for 3.5 percent of her oil. Europe depended on Iraq for 9 percent of its supplies. France however imported 14 percent of her total crude oil supplies from Iraq, and CFP depended on Iraq for 19 million tons of oil each year.
In recognition of France's sympathetic stand on the Arab-Israeli issue since 1967, the Iraqi government agreed to allow the French company CFP to take its usual share of the nationalized oil. During the oil shortage, the Iraqis decided to play the French against the majors.
On June 1, 1972, President Bakr of Iraq announced the nationalization of IPC's oil concession and installations. However, no mention was made of the two IPC associates, BPC and MPC. The Iraqi government explained their decision not to nationalize BPC and MPC by stating that it was not in Iraq's national interest to nationalize all foreign oil holdings at once.
Thus the 1972 nationalization measures affected only the Kirkuk field. IPC was legally responsible for Kirkuk production which amounted to 2.3 million barrels a day in early 1972, and which supplied oil to its Mediterranean terminals at Tripoli (Lebanon) and Banias (Syria).
The other major Iraqi oil fields, the Basrah field (production of 675,000 barrels a day), operated by BPC and the Mosul field (production of 25,000 barrel a day), operated by MPC, and were not included in the nationalization measures.
The instrument of nationalization was "law 69" of June 1, 1972. The Law stated that the nationalization covered the areas delineated by "law 80" of December 1961, and established a new state company, the Iraqi Company for Oil Operations, to take charge of the management of funds, assets and rights of IPC.
The Syrian government also announced on June 1, 1972, that it had nationalized the IPC's pipeline and terminal installations on its territory and a new Syrian Company, the Syrian Company for Oil Transport, was established to manage the facilities.
The British government, which had no diplomatic relations at the time with either country, regretted the nationalization measures and asked both governments to compensate IPC for its nationalized interests. That was as much as the British could do.
The days of foreign control, exemplified by the case of Mossadeq in 1951 (the prime minister who nationalized Iran's oil industry and was. then overthrown by an American-sponsored coup), had long ended.
The oil producing countries demonstrated their independence decisively by creating nationalized companies which could hold their own in the oil business.
At the time of nationalization, Britain depended on Iraq for 3.5 percent of her oil. Europe depended on Iraq for 9 percent of its supplies. France however imported 14 percent of her total crude oil supplies from Iraq, and CFP depended on Iraq for 19 million tons of oil each year.
In recognition of France's sympathetic stand on the Arab-Israeli issue since 1967, the Iraqi government agreed to allow the French company CFP to take its usual share of the nationalized oil. During the oil shortage, the Iraqis decided to play the French against the majors.
On June 12, 1972, an Iraqi delegation arrived in Paris for talks with CFP and ELF-ERAP. In an agreement, reached on the 18th of June, Iraq agreed to sell oil to GFP over a ten-year period in quantities equivalent to the 23.75 share which the French company had previously held in IPC, and at those prices which had prevailed prior to nationalization.
Iraq also agreed to continue its agreement with ELF-ERAP. Iraq's agreement with the French was a clear indication that the "majors" no longer held together, and that foreign govern­ments were interested in unilateral agreements in order to guarantee, their oil supplies.
In similar fashion, the Iraqis concluded other agreements with the Soviet Union, Italy and Brazil.
In a meeting in Beirut on June 9-10, OPEC fully supported Iraq's takeover of IPC. On June 20, the OPEC finance ministers met in Baghdad and agreed to grant Iraq and Syria loans of 53.9 million and 6.8 million pounds respectively to help them meet the foreign exchange shortages that had been caused by the loss of revenues from IPC.
When the fourth Arab-Israeli war broke out in 1973, Iraq took another step towards nationalizing the foreign oil interests on her soil.
Since the United States and Holland were considered the greatest supporters of Israel, Iraq nationalized the concessionary right of the two American companies (Exxon and Mobil) in BPC, and the Royal Dutch Oil Company which possessed 60 percent of Shell Oil Company in the BPC. In 1975, the Iraqi government nationalized the remaining foreign interests in BPC.
This measure was taken because Iraq had no problems marketing her oil due to the high demand in world markets at that time.
In late 1974 and early 1975, world production of oil exceeded demand by around 1.3-3.0 million barrels a day. Iraq was the only OPEC country to raise its production by 20 percent; however, it had to lower its prices from US$11.75 to US$10.75 per barrel.
Despite the considerable criticism this move elicited, Iraq decided to raise produc­tion levels because of internal problems that necessitated cash flow.
First; Iraq was fighting the Kurds, a task which absorbed a large portion of her GNP. Second, Iraq was considering constructing alternative pipeline routes because its conflict with Syria made use of the Syrian pipline precarious.
And, third, Iraq was enhancing its military strength to counter the growing military capabilities of the Shah of Iran.
Iraq's production for the years 1975-80, amounted respectively to 110.9, 112.2, 122, 127, 170 and 175 million tons (3.5 million barrels a day for the first three quarters of 1980).
Iraq's estimated reserves are at 35 billion barrels - fourth in OPEC after Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. The international Energy Agency analysts estimate that Iraq can produce 4 million barrels a day and that the production rate will double in the next decade.
Its great economic resources were partly responsible for drawing Iraq into its current embroglio with Iran. Its surplus of US$14 billion in the year 1980 was one of the factors that enabled it to undertake a short war effort. Whether that economic potential will survive the by now four-year-old war is a topic for future study.


Thus immediately the door was open for foreign companies to compete with IPC, and negotiations with French and Soviet delegations began in early 1968.
In February 1968, an agreement was signed between the Iraqi government and the French state-owned ELF-ERAP. Under this agreement ELF-ERAP was granted prospecting rights against the payment of US$15 million in about 4,000 square miles of land and off-shore areas formerly held by the IPC in which oil had not been discovered.
The prospecting rights were for a period of six years, followed by a 20 year exploitation period during which half of any discoveries would be retained by Iraq.
When commercial production began, INOC would assume complete control of operations and the French company would assist INOC with marketing.
In return, ELF-ERAP would be permitted to purchase 30 percent of the output at preferential rates.
In a further move, the Iraqi government signed an agreement with the Soviet Union in June 1969.
The Soviets agreed to supply Iraq with equipment, technical assistance and loans for development of its oil reserves. In return, the Iraqi government agreed to repay the Soviets in the form of oil deliveries.
The agreement with the Soviet Union was a clear_ indication that the Iraqis were seeking alternatives to the West for aid, and it also demonstrated that the Soviet Union was capable of offering technical help in the oil industry.

Declassified Iraqi Intel Documents Reveal Ties to French State Owned Oil Company
excerpt:
In 1994, under the leadership of Loik Le Floch-Prigent, the French oil company negotiated lucrative contracts with Iraqi Oil Minister Safa al-Habobi, giving Elf-Acquitaine exclusive rights to the Majnoon oil fields on the border with Iran. Another French government owned company, Total SA--which would later merge with Elf-Acquitaine--was given rights to another oil field. The contracts were worth $100 billion over seven years but were conditioned on the U.N. sanctions being lifted. The major share of oil pumped during the oil-for food regime was done by the now merged Elf-Total SA & Russia's Gazprom.
excerpt:
In 1976 Elf-ERAP became Société National Elf Aquitaine (SNEA), later Elf Aquitaine. Elf Aquitaine was listed on the NYSE in 1991. In 1996 the French government sold its stake, retaining a Golden Share. In 2000 Elf Aquitaine merged with Total Fina to form TotalFinaElf, which changed its name to Total in 2003. In 1993 Elf was awarded the exclusive contract to the Iraqi Oil Fields by then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. This has come under fire pre-Iraqi 2003 war. This also dissproves many conspiracy theories about Haliburton's involvement with Iraqi Oil fields.
"The biggest fraud inquiry in Europe since World War II"
The Elf scandal in France was, according to The Guardian, "the biggest fraud inquiry in Europe since the Second World War. Elf became a private bank for its executives who spent £200 million on political favours, mistresses, jewellery, fine art, villas and apartments".
Watch This Short Video:

http://newworldorderresistancemilitia.ning.com/profiles/blogs/blood...