CommieNews on YouTube

Please go by YouTube and check out the CommieNews videos.

NAU-NAFTA Superhighway agenda: Manitoba Premier Gary Doer exposes NDP leader Jack Layton's campaign of mass-deception

by Bill Lavigne

	NDP Premier Gary Doer [Left] and NDP leader Jack Layton [Right] are demonstrating themselves to be politically invasive “fifth column” collaborators of a U.S. military expansionist agenda into Canada.

The federal NDP advertises on its website that it is against the Security and Prosperity Partnership North American Union (SPP-NAU) agenda. However, it appears that the NDP merely advertises such opposition to placate and deceive its activist supporters, while Mr. Layton and his political party elite colleagues substantively capitulate.

Indeed, in spite of the alleged opposition of the NDP to the SPP-NAU agenda, Manitoba's NDP Premier Gary Doer, in his government's Throne Speech 20 November 2007, endorsed the so-called "Mid Continental Corridor" North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway.

While Mr. Harper professes to stand for "integrity in government", the Stephen Harper government has officially denied the existence of any such "NAFTA Superhighway" project, in the face of ample proof that it does exist.

Rest assured, Mr. Doer as an NDP Premier, within the constitutional modus operandi of the NDP, would not have provided that SPP-related endorsement, without having consultation and agreement with Jack Layton, his federal party leader. That type of high level "executive-political" non-consultation is not how the NDP works.

Victor Fletcher, the editor of Toronto Street News, regales us with a story about NDP leader Jack Layton: "I met Jack Layton two Saturdays ago and asked him why the NDP was supporting the NAFTA highway in the NDP Manitoba Throne Speech. He said "Manitoba needs the Churchill jobs." I agreed but further asked: "Why then, do they have to issue Mexican drivers licenses for fall of 2008?" He then RAN AWAY!"

"He took off with his aide and never answered after taking a copy of Toronto Street News which a headline I pointed to saying: “Harper's Police State Union With Bush Moving Fast! Manitoba Throne Speech Announces U.S. Union!"

This is not the action of someone who is substantively against the SPP-NAU agenda. Mr. Layton as a "Quisling"-like collaborator, along with Mr. Dion and the Bloc Quebecois leader have indeed turned Opposition Party politics in Canada into facile political theatre aimed at deceiving Canadians.

The Norwegian Prime Minister Vidkun Quisling co-operated with Adolf Hitler to deliver that country to the Nazis; and these Canadians are similarly cooperating to deliver Canada to Neo-Nazi military expansionist interests. Indeed, both former German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, and the U.S. Bush administration embrace disturbingly similar pre-emptive military strike foreign policy and national security legitimated doctrines.

The NDP grassroots in particular, are being lulled into a stupor that 'Jack' is out fighting against the SPP, while his operatives like Gary Doer betray the apparent true allegiances of NDP political party elites.

Victor Fletcher also states: "Jack Layton is an old customer of mine from the late 1970's when he ran for municipal politics and I ran a union typesetting company designing election literature and arranging union printing for customers." Therefore, Mr. Fletcher provides his comments as someone who has been very supportive of Mr. Layton and the NDP.

Mr. Fletcher as elaborates that: "I was a supporter of his [Mr. Layton] over the years and he did help us with the Toronto Street News sold by the homeless. So I have known Jack for many years and he was the only politician who ever wrote a book about the homeless situation."

"I was deeply saddened when he confirmed the NDP government of Doer and their Throne Speech also confirmed the NAFTA highway was coming from Mexico to deliver exploited Mexican labour to Canada as well as Chinese goods."

The NAU-NAFTA Superhighway is an apparent scheme designed to faciliate the bringing into Manitoba (and other parts of Canada) exploited Mexican slave labour; and bringing out of Canadian resources. Map reference: LINK

Indeed, the so-called NAFTA Superhighway, is an agenda of Big Business interests, that have sought to use the secretive arrangement of the SPP-NAU created by elites, to import slave labour from Mexico and goods created from the slave labour of Communist China.

In the view of Big Business NAFTA Superhighway backers, why should corporations move to Mexico and build new factories to employ cheap Mexican labour, when you can bring cheap Mexican labour into the U.S. and Canada through a NAFTA Superhighway corridor? Imagine cheap Mexican and other exploited labour being brought to work in existing manufacturing plants into Canadian cities like Winnipeg, Vancouver, Hamilton, and Toronto, where these Mexicans (and other exploited labour) would be paid the same wage as if they were still in Mexico, Communist China, India or a "Third World" country.

An integral part of the NAU agenda is to replace existing Canadian and U.S. immigration law, with edicts that have been secretly created by Big Business interests, and that can move cheap labour, like livestock, around North America, along a elite constructed Continental Highway and Inland Port System.

Drivers Licenses in the context of the NAFTA Superhighway Agenda

	NAFTA map corridor.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership hologram logo in the shape of the North American Continent has began to appear on new driver's licenses being issued in the State of North Carolina.

The issuing of such licenses in North America is apparently being executed under the terms of the Driver's License Agreement (DLA), launched under the auspices American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).

The National Conferences of State Legislatures in the United States documents in a report issued in March 2005 that "the new DLA was developed largely without input from state elected officials." LINK. The DLA is the institutional creature of an anti-democratic and exploitative agenda.

The DLA indeed envisions the creation of one common license across North America inclusive of Mexico, in relation to the broad SPP-NAU agenda.

Indeed, the apparent NAU agenda of the DLA defines "jurisdiction" to, “allow participation by a territory or province of Canada and by any state of the Republic of Mexico or the Federal District of Mexico.” LINK.

Under the pretext of new national security features, in defence against the "terrorists", the DLA operatives of the SPP are seeking to convince Canadians and Americans of the need to accept new licenses. However, that is an apparent mass-deception. The new licenses appear to be actually about furthering a calculated malevolent continental corporate agenda.

William Gheen, who heads the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration political action committee, says the new license is “‘North American Union' ready.”

The online publication New Max reported on 6 September 2007 that, "The hologram is a foil-based security patch that carries design features both visible and invisible to the human eye, including a variety of codes, numbers, and 3-D and fluorescent images."

The apparent agenda of these licenses is to enable exploited Mexican labour who are issued North American licenses, to be able to freely drive into U.S. and Canadian industrial centres, as a parallel pool of cheap labour, that can be paid by employers as if they were still in Mexico. Mexicans would be presumably housed in prison like labour camps, as an industrial reserve army for the rich corporate elites that seek to replace democracy in Canada and the United States with their own "NAU continental authority".

The Industrial interests that back that NAFTA Superhighway are anti-union, and seek the NAFTA Superhighway as a means to take labour rights back to an elite idealized time during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, when workers lived in abject poverty, at the sufferance of their employers.

Indeed, the whole apparent goal of the U.S. Bush administration's interest in amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States was not out of compassion or a conviction for human rights. Rather, the U.S. Bush administration appears to have simply sought to enable corporations to be able to more openly hire exploited Mexican workers, without union support, on wages that are below the poverty line.

NAFTA Superhighway promises masses job losses for Canadians and Americans, alongside growing urban poverty

The NAFTA Superhighway promises to create massive new layoffs of higher paid Canadian workers in Canada, and American workers in the U.S., and the overall spread of worsening urban poverty and crime, as a result of these massive lay-offs, and the influx of exploited migrant labour.

The NAFTA Superhighway agenda is being hidden away from Canadians, (as well as Americans) because less than 1% of Canadians and Americans (i.e. elite corporate shareholders and owners of capital) is expected to commercially benefit from it.

It is apparent that the NAFTA Superhighway that in turn is linked to the DLA architects "one license under one continent" mantra , that in turn is linked to the overall SPP-NAU agenda, is part of the New World Order (NWO) agenda, that seeks to "unify" the world under a neo-fascist elite. Through new licenses and other such sophisticated biometric and other such "security measures", in the name of "fighting terrorism", elites seek to rule our planet Earth via totalitarian control.

The NWO envisions a planet Earth, where people cannot rely on local democratic control to defend their human rights.

The NAFTA Superhighway or Mid-Continental Corridor in reference to Mr. Layton's comments, is not designed to provide good paying jobs to the people of Churchill, or other parts of Canada. Rather, the NAFTA Superhighway is intended to simplify continental land routes, and accordingly, ease the ability of Mexicans, and other exploited labour to be transported into Churchill, and other parts of Canada, at the will of elites, within a neo-fascistic NAU.

As Mr. Fletcher expresses: "I hadn't expected the NDP of all parties to be the ones to let the cat out of the bag for all Canadians to see, after he had previously indicated the NDP would fight the union of Canada, U.S. and Mexico."

"We all know that the CPR bought a railway south of the Great Lakes which has a spur line down to Kansas City where the NAFTA Superhighway will allow Mexican truck drivers to reach quickly," adds Mr. Fletcher

"The CNR is doing similar work on Canada's west coast reaching south into Washington State."

"Yes, I button-holed him at the Bali demonstration at Yonge and Dundas. His aide took the current issue of the paper calling Harper a traitor for lying about the NAFTA highway and NAU. But they left me standing there when I asked the question," further says Mr. Fletcher.

The NAFTA Superhighway is being built around a broader scheme to transfer Canada's control of its own resources, to U.S. and Canadian-based Big Business interests, in the context of the neo-fascistic NAU agenda.

The U.S. political-military-industrial complex having depleted America's resources through greed-driven exploitation, seeks to create a NAFTA Superhighway specifically, and the NAU. in general, in order to facilitate the siphoning and depletion of our resources, here in Canada.

Canadians must either rally to cancel NAFTA that spawned the SPP-NAU agenda, or face a future in which they will have little more rights that sheep in a farm, with a quality-of-life that may not be that much better.

THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION AND THE LARGER PLAN

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
November 17, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

In order to bring about a North American Union (NAU), the public first has to be conditioned to think of themselves as North Americans. In that regard, Thomas Donohue (president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) on June 16, 2006 remarked that "for CEOs, North America is already a single market, and business decisions are no longer made with a Mexico strategy---or a Canada strategy---but, rather, with a North American strategy....I think it's pretty clear now that it no longer makes sense to talk about U.S. competitiveness and Mexican competitiveness---or, for that matter, about the competitiveness of Canada. We are all in this together---we, as North Americans."

Also relevant to this process is the publication of NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION MONITOR since 2002 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Very soon, CSIS also will publish (and has agreed to send me) their final document on their "North American Future 2025 Project." The Project has "an emphasis on regional integration," and the year 2025 A.D. was selected "on the basis of the data presently available on overall global projections." Seven closed-door roundtable sessions have been looking at the methodology of global and North American projections, as well as labor mobility, energy, the environment, security, competitiveness, and border infrastructure and logistics.

Zbigniew Brzezinski has been a CSIS counselor, and at Mikhail Gorbachev's first State of the World Forum in 1995, Brzezinski revealed: "We cannot leap into world government through one quick step....The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units." This is why the CSIS Project has "an emphasis on regional integration." (Brzezinski also described the regions that would be formed, that Israel and the Palestinians would be part of a Middle Eastern region, how Communist China would be brought into an Asian region, and that Iran would be part of a Central Asian region which would have important oil and gas pipelines constructed.)

At this point, it is worth remembering that in Stalin's January 1913 address in Vienna, he advocated national loyalties becoming subservient to regions. And 3 years later, Lenin in 1916 proclaimed: "The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them."

You may recall that in Brzezinski's BETWEEN TWO AGES (1970), he praised Marxism, and he claimed that "the nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty." One aspect of American sovereignty that is being yielded is ownership of American companies by Americans. In the first 9 months of 2007, 69 companies in New England alone have been sold to foreign buyers. Nationally, the French company Alcatel bought Lucent Technologies in the U.S. last year, and in September 2007 announced it will be cutting thousands of jobs.

Relevant to this, Alan Tonelson (research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council) said foreign companies are "acquiring control over the most dynamic pieces of the American economy, and they're acquiring control over America's future." Also relevant to this was the assessment by Donald Klepper-Smith (chief economist at DataCore Partners) regarding decisions made overseas and how they would effect American workers. He opined: "It raises some red flags and some real questions about our independence."

Part of the conditioning process to cause Americans to accept a NAU is the role of past and present government officials explaining the alleged economic benefits of such a union. For example, Harry Roegner in a letter titled "An economic union would be beneficial" in THE GREENVILLE (South Carolina) SUN (October 15, 2007) pointed out the large oil reserves of both Canada and Mexico that would be useful to the U.S., as well as Mexico's excess manpower who, as immigrants, would help support U.S. and Canadian economic growth. Roegner was an adviser on foreign trade issues to the U.S. Department of Commerce from 1984 to 1994, and in his letter said: "A North American economic union would provide the free flow of capital and labor across national borders needed to address many of the (aforementioned) imbalances."

Often regional economic integration into some type of union is argued on the basis of free trade. However, John Fonte (who had an office next to mine at the U.S. Department of Education) of the Hudson Institute has explained that the concept of regional economic arrangements or trading blocs actually is contrary to free trade to an extent. For example, in a NAU, there would be trading arrangements among the 3 nations which would limit the ability of the U.S. to trade freely with nations outside the NAU trading bloc.

But hasn't President Bush recently said all this talk about a NAU is nonsense? On August 21, 2007 at the concluding press conference for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in Montebello, Quebec, Fox News reporter Bret Baier asked if the SPP is a prelude to a NAU similar to the European Union (EU), and if there are plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all 3 countries. President Bush replied: "If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist."

The truth, of course, is that the U.S., Canada and Mexico are being connected by 4 Trade Corridors. On November 20, 2007, Lt. Governor John Harvard of Manitoba delivered a "Speech From The Throne," in which he revealed: "Manitoba has been working with the Canadian government and state governments in the U.S. to protect and enhance our access to key trade markets. In response to U.S. border and security measures, Manitoba will begin offering an enhanced driver's license as an affordable and secure form of identification for travelers. The new license will be available in the Fall of 2008. Manitoba is also taking a major role in the development of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor, connecting our northern Port of Churchill with trade markets throughout the central United States and Mexico. To advance the concept, an alliance has been built with business leaders and state and city governments spanning the entire length of the Corridor. When fully developed, the trade route will incorporate an 'in-land port' in Winnipeg with pre-clearance for international shipping."

The SPP is also an important part of the power elite's plan for a techno-feudal fascist world government because it is a "partnership." For years, the American people and their leaders have been conditioned to accept educational and other partnerships as solutions to their problems. For example, city governments strapped for funds are approached by corporations or their related private foundations with plans and funds to improve education, which the city leaders are only too glad to accept. This conditions the people eventually to accept government/corporate rule. This is a form of Socialism known as fascism, and it will be the type of world government the power elite plans ultimately to bring about and control. In this government, the power elite will control politicians who will become government leaders who will promulgate laws, rules and regulations favorable to certain transnational corporations (controlled by the power elite) and unfavorable to any possible competition to those select corporations.

So why did President Bush ridicule Bret Baier's question, especially since there are already 47 Mexican Consulates across the U.S.? Lou Dobbs in his CNN commentary "Beware the Lame Duck" (October 17, 2007) wrote: "Although many conservatives refuse to accept the reality, George W. Bush is a one-world neo-liberal who drove budget and trade deficits to record heights....President Bush has pressed hard for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the first step toward a North American Union that will threaten our sovereignty. The administration has permitted American businesses to hire illegal aliens, encouraged the invasion of 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and has given Mexico and corporate America dominion over our borders and our immigration policy....The assault on our national sovereignty continues....The president is urging the Senate to act favorably on our accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea....The treaty will submit the United States to international tribunals largely adverse to our interests, and dispute resolution mechanisms are stacked against the United States....The treaty would undermine our national sovereignty and act as a back door for global environmental activists to direct U.S. policy." Fortunately, in Congress, House Concurrent Resolution 40 states: "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."

If I could have followed up Bret Baier's question with one of my own, here's what I would have asked: "So, President Bush, will the massive 10-lane toll road TransTexas Corridor funded by Cintra of Spain and to be built by Zachry Construction of Texas come to a screeching halt at Oklahoma's border?" What are all the vehicles supposed to do---merge all of a sudden into a small road? I don't think so ! And by the way, Cintra is legally represented in Texas by leading Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which also just happens to have an office in Dubai (remember Dubai Ports was about to take over operation of a number of America's largest ports) ! Perhaps before President Bush was too critical of people warning about a NAU, he should have read what Mexico's President Vicente Fox said May 16, 2002 at Club 21 in Madrid: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union" (or as Gorbachev refers to the EU, the "European Soviet").

I would also have asked President Bush at the press conference why on September 6, 2007 at 9pm did he open all U.S. highways to Mexican trucks? Earlier in the day, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio said President Bush was "_ _ _ _ bent" on getting Mexican trucks in the U.S. by stealth. Currently, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration website lists 10 Mexican carriers that are approved to transport goods throughout the U.S., and nearly 40 more Mexican carriers will soon join them on the list.

Will all Mexican truck drivers be stopped at the border to see if they can read road signs in English, if they have criminal backgrounds, and how long they already have been driving that day (U.S. law prohibits more than 10 consecutive hours)? I doubt it, since no more than 2% of Mexican trucks entering the U.S. today are inspected ! Many of these trucks will be a danger to Americans' safety, and could be used for smuggling drugs, illegal aliens, and terrorists into the U.S.

Many countries deliberately release their criminal elements into the U.S., often coming across the Mexican border. And if the criminals are caught, our federal government releases them into American society if their own countries refuse to take them back. Our government knows how to solve this problem (e.g., stop issuing visas to people from those countries), but has refused to take such action most of the time. Ask yourself why our government would release murderers, rapists, arsonists, and other criminals into our society to commit violent crimes against us. Think about it !

Returning to Bret Baier's question to President Bush about the SPP being a prelude to a NAU similar to the EU, what would we get if we became like the EU, which has certain characteristics of fascism? Mrs. Kitty Werthmann (a survivor of Hitler's reign and Soviet rule afterward) recently returned to Europe and interviewed many senior citizens. They informed her they were told conversion to the Euro would bring prosperity via free trade, lower prices for goods, etc. In reality, though, their money was devalued greatly, and they're now living on welfare and food stamps. Unemployment in Europe is high while guest workers are brought in, and the people are angry.

In terms of what is planned for Americans relevant to the EU and the Euro, Vicente Fox on CNN's "Larry King Live" show October 8, 2007 explained that what he and President Bush agreed to "is a trade union for all the Americas," and he suggested that eventually there would be a regional currency. He made similar comments on the "Daily Show" the same day. Earlier in 2007, Bolivian President Evo Morales proposed a single currency for all South American nations.

Concerning North American nations, in June 1991, Dallas Federal Reserve publication no. 9115, "Free Trade and the Peso" by Darryl McLeod and John Welch, analyzed the potential for a single North American currency. In 1999, former Canadian parliament member Herbert Grubel published "The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Union," giving 2010 as the possible date for introducing the "amero" as the new North American currency. And in the Atlanta Federal Reserve's ECONOMIC REVIEW (4th quarter, 2000), Michael Chriszt (director of the Reserve's Latin America Research Group) wrote "Perspectives on a Potential North American Monetary Union" in which one reads that "the idea of a single currency for NAFTA is on the table." In July 2000, Vicente Fox had already proposed a North American common market with a continental monetary policy.

More recently, David Dodge, Governor of the Bank of Canada, in May 2007 said that a common currency with the U.S. is definitely possible. What will happen is the power elite will cause the dollar to be devalued to the point where Americans reluctantly will accept the amero. As Bob Chapman in his December 2006 newsletter, INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER, said: "(The amero) will be presented to the American public as the administration's solution for dollar recovery."

On June 14, 2007 BankIntroductions.com told their clients that in the next 10-20 years, as the global economy moves toward regional trading blocs, the amero or "North American Monetary Unit" (NAMU) will be introduced. The power elite's plan is to form regional unions with their own currencies and then link them into a world government with one global currency. Relevant to this, Reuters reporter Emmanuel Jarry on October 23, 2007 wrote "Sarkozy (French President) Calls for Mediterranean Union Launch in 2008." And the African Union's African Central Bank plans to mint the "Gold Mandela" as a single African currency by 2010 (the date the NAU is supposed to form).

If you look at the top of the website for the Single Global Currency Association (SGCA), there is a quote by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, saying: "A global economy requires a global currency." The SGCA "is dedicated to the goal of implementing a single global currency by 2025...managed by a single international central bank." I have already indicated that on the cover of THE ECONOMIST (June 9, 1988) is a picture of "The Phoenix," a global currency suggested for implementation in 2018.

Whatever the date of the global currency's introduction, it will be advertised as facilitating world trade, which the power elite will control. This will be like in the days of Solomon when he fortified Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo (the Har, or Mount, of Megiddo would be called Armageddon). Through this fortification, he controlled the Via Maris and world trade, thereby controlling the world of his day. The power elite today plans to do likewise, but in a Biblical sense their plan will lead to the Battle of Armageddon.

© 2007 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

Dept of Justice Against Net Neutrality

Within the last few days, he Department of Justice has recommended that the FCC come out against Net Neutrality, in favor of allowing the owners of infrastructure to charge people who write online to allow content to pass to readers and viewers.

The move could potentially give a handful of companies more control over Net-based information than they currently have over radio and television programming.

DOJ Slams Net Neutrality (Article in PC Mag Online).

5 Day Martial Law Exercise

ntel Strike | September 7, 2007
Lee Rogers

The United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has just announced plans for an anti-terrorism exercise called Vigilant Shield 08 . The exercise which is slated to run from October 15th to October 20th is described as a way to prepare, prevent and respond to any number of national crises. The exercise is simply a test case scenario for the implementation of martial law. Although the description of the exercise is disturbing, USNORTHCOM also announced that they are more prepared for a natural disaster and a terrorist attack after they used their response to Hurricane Katrina as a test laboratory. During Hurricane Katrina, authorities violated the constitutional rights of citizens by stealing people?s firearms and even relocating people against their will. These announcements are incredibly disturbing on a number of levels as the nature of Vigilant Shield 08 and the admission that Hurricane Katrina was used as a test laboratory shows that the government is actively preparing the military and government institutions for martial law.

Below is the full press release from USNORTHCOM describing Vigilant Shield 08. Also check out the Vigilant Shield 08 fact sheet by clicking here .

North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command along with U.S. Pacific Command, the Department of Homeland Security as well as local, state and other federal responders will exercise their response abilities against a variety of potential threats during Exercise Vigilant Shield ?08, a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-designated, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)-sponsored, and U.S. Joint Forces Command-supported Department of Defense exercise for homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities missions.

VS-08 will be conducted concurrent with Top Officials 4 (TOPOFF 4), the nation?s premier exercise of terrorism preparedness sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security, and several other linked exercises as part of the National Level Exercise 1-08. These linked exercises will take place Ocober 15-20 and are being conducted throughout the United States and in conjunction with several partner nations including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, as well as the Territory of Guam.

VS-08 and National Level Exercise 1-08 will provide local, state, tribal, interagency, Department of Defense, and non-governmental organizations and agencies involved in homeland security and homeland defense the opportunity to participate in a full range of exercise scenarios that will better prepare participants to prevent and respond to national crises. The participating organizations will conduct a multi-layered, civilian-led response to a national crisis.

USNORTHCOM?s primary exercise venues for VS-08 include locations in Oregon, Arizona and a cooperative venue with USPACOM in the Territory of Guam. NORAD?s aerospace detection and defense events will take place across all the exercise venues, to exercise the ability to mobilize resources for aerospace defense, aerospace control, maritime warning, and coordination of air operations in a disaster area.

This exercise is clearly a way to prepare government to respond to a national crisis with martial law. This announcement also follows a number of other news stories that indicate the government is becoming more actively prepared for the implementation of martial law.

These stories include the following:

George W. Bush issuing a presidential directive declaring that he is a dictator during the case of a national emergency be it a natural disaster, a terror attack or any number of crises.

KSLA reporting that members of clergy will be used to convince people to submit to government in the case of declare martial law.

The U.S. Department of Treasury conducting a disaster drill to prepare for a potential economic crisis.

In addition to the announcement of Vigilant Shield 08, USNORTHCOM also announced that they have been using the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina to better respond to crises. The response to Hurricane Katrina was essentially used as a test laboratory to implement martial law in a city. People were forced to relocate against their will and authorities stole people?s firearms in the name of safety despite these actions being entirely unconstitutional.

From USNORTHCOM :

?Hurricane Katrina?s impact on this country was unprecedented. There are still many of our fellow Americans whose lives still haven?t returned to normal,? said Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and USNORTHCOM. ?It will take many years for the Gulf Coast to fully recover.

?The United States military was deeply involved in the response to the hurricane and subsequent flooding,? Renuart said. ?While our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines helped thousands of people, we also learned many lessons.?

According to Renuart, USNORTHCOM has been using the lessons learned from Katrina to modify plans to respond to both natural disasters and potential terrorist actions.

Northern Command also admits in the same article that they have pre-scripted mission assignments coordinated with FEMA to implement martial law under the pretext of disaster response.

From USNORTHCOM :

USNORTHCOM is ready to help federal, state and local officials to be prepared for a major hurricane and to be successful at conducting response operations, if necessary and requested by the primary responding agency. Some of the ways these objectives are being achieved are:

Through State Engagement programs, USNORTHCOM provides planning support to help states prepare for emergencies.

USNORTHCOM and its subordinates, as well as local, state and federal partners conduct major disaster exercises to refine processes and apply lessons learned.

Working with FEMA, USNORTHCOM has prepared pre-scripted mission assignments to accelerate the disaster response process.

USNORTHCOM conducted a major exercise with the National Guard in May to refine the interface between the National Guard and DoD.

There is no question that Vigilant Shield 08 is either government preparation for the implementation of martial law or a way for criminal elements within the government to distract emergency responders in order to conduct a false flag terror attack as a pretext to actually implement martial law and engage in foreign war. On September 11th, 2001 there were drills run by NORAD including Vigilant Guardian which served as a way to ensure that there was no adequate military response to the hi-jacked planes. A similar scenario unfolding with Vigilant Shield is not out of the question.

Sicko

Once again, Michael Moore takes on big game. Sicko, his latest, has humor and poignancy as well as relevancy and Message.

Here in Orange County, California, several large theater chains refused to air Moore's previous works Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 911, but Edwards has now picked it up.

Meanwhile, Moore's site Sickotix, at http://www.sickotix.com/ has a theater locator and options to buy.

Dead Donkeys Don't Kick

Some Observations on the recent vote for war:

• The demos have signed on to Bush's war when 20% of the population supported it.


• Therefore, most congressmen and senators voted against their constituencies.


• Since even centrist media have finally reported that the Bushies excused their invasions in a cascade of lies, one must assume professional politicians have long recognized that. So few if any of these votes can be tied to conscience over Iraqis.


• The troops can be withdrawn at no cost to the troops with the money the government now has. Being in Baghdad is more dangerous than being in the US. So this bill kills troops; it does not protect them or support them. This is obvious enough that one must find it unlikely that anyone signed off on the war to support American troops.


• Politicians and there immediate families rarely get involved in war. (The current ex-Vietnam politicians were at draft age in a time when the lottery draft did not respect economic differences, not in the current, more typical poverty-draft.) So the votes did not come from direct personal concerns (indirect concerns, including payola, may be another matter).


• Republicans may have voted against their better judgment from party loyalties, but this would not apply to democrats.


• Anyone could have voted out of some obscure ideological ideas. But if so, the ideas seem more thoroughly obscure than usual. The war violates liberty, may result in disorder within the US as well as outside of it, and will be vastly unprofitable to much of the elite as well as most all American citizens. Moreover, politicians engage in adjusting ideals to practical circumstance professionally, on a daily basis. The substitution of childish lies (WMD after inspectors had verified their nonexistence, regime replacement after Hussein offered to step down, terrorism when bin Ladin represents religious and political factions opposed to Hussein) for even the most arcane of ideological argument suggests that ideological cannot be a primary reason.


• Bribery laws don't get enforced efficiently, but when they do, the results are costly for politicians, who could otherwise retire on comfortable albeit vastly reduced pensions.


• Politicians who have no campaign funds get removed from office regardless of how they vote. One could even argue that politicians should kowtow to lobbyists simply because any who don't will have to leave the beltway with dispatch

We might conclude that the intersection of two groups will be an approximate list of those who bought the war:

• Corporations who have given or will give funds to democrats who voted for war


• Corporations who have profited or stand to profit greatly from the war. This includes not only contractors, but companies that sell oil that does not come from Iraq.

How to become a dictator in a democracy

How to become a dictator in a democracy

Get ready for a "national emergency"

By Kurt Nimmo

It is hardly surprising not a single corporate newspaper reported the death of the Constitution. Go to Google News and type in National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive and hit enter. Google returns ten paltry results, not one from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or related corporate media source. Google Trends rates the story as mild, that is to say it warrants nary a blip on the news radar screen. Of course, another death blow to the Constitution, already long on life support, is hardly news. Few understand we now live in a dictatorship, or maybe it should be called a decidership.

The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a Catastrophic Emergency the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency, writes Lee Rogers for Global Research. The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn't say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.

In short, Bush may now declare himself absolute ruler at any moment and Congress can like it or lump it. Naturally, this act of betrayal is of so little importance and consequence, the corporate media believes you are better served knowing Justin Timberlake is in love.

This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be equal in power, Lee continues. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all branches of government what to do.

So much for the first three articles of the Constitution, designed to make sure there remains a separation of power between branches of government. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition, declared James Madison in the Federalist Papers. Madison, in his original draft of the Bill of Rights, included a proposed amendment that would make the separation of powers explicit, but this proposal was rejected, primarily because his fellow members of Congress thought the separation of powers principle was obvious in the Constitution. There was no way for them to read the future, or predict the wholesale selling and buying of Congress, a judiciary stacked with reactionary troglodytes from the Federalist Society, and a largely brain dead public apparently more interested in Britney Spears lip-sync concerts than preserving the Constitution, let alone comprehending it.

Bush, of course, takes his marching orders from higher up on the food chain, more specifically the World Economic Forum, the club of billionaires and transnational corporations that meet annually in Davos, Switzerland, where they plot our future. In January, the Forum, with numerous links to business networks, policy-makers and government, NGOs and think-tanks, at the behest of Merrill Lynch, Swiss Re and the Center for Risk Management and Decision Processes, and Wharton School, produced Global Risks 2007, a report containing various dire global risk scenarios, including a full-blown [influenza] pandemic, with one million deaths worldwide. Other possible global risk scenarios include international terrorism and climate change.

But what does all of this have to do with Bush and the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive?

The Directive slipped out relatively unnoticed by the mainstream media, yet it has important and positive implications for the future resiliency of public sector operations in the United States, reports Continuity Central. The concepts of a National Continuity Coordinator and a centrally directed National Continuity Implementation Plan are to be welcomed in principle and are something which other countries should look seriously at emulating.

Earlier in the year the World Economic Forum called for such a position to be set up in every government in its 'Global Risks 2007' report. This championed the appointment of 'Country Risk Officers' who would provide a focal point in government for mitigating global risks across departments, learning from private-sector approaches and escaping a 'silo-based' approach. As for the position of National Continuity Coordinator, it went to Frances Fragos Townsend, chair of the Homeland Security Council, who reports to Bush, or rather the neocons and a scattering of neolibs who tell Dubya what to say and do every morning.

Townsend, as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, by virtue of the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive signed May 9, 2007, by President Bush, is also National Continuity Coordinator, notes SourceWatch. The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive states: The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

In essence, the globalist oligarchy, from on-high in Davos, through business networks, policy-makers NGOs and think-tanks, are driving policies designed to reduce the Constitution to an irrelevancy. Of course, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are but the last impediment to establishing a globalist soviet in the United States, soon to be merged into a North American Union, itself but a component of larger trading blocs carved out by the globalists.

Considering all of this, it makes perfect sense the corporate media ignored the rollout of the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, same as they ignore the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, even though the latter involves the direct participation of Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Naturally, any talk of conspiracy to sell out the nation and dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights relegates one to the tinfoil hat brigade, for if such things are not reported upon or discussed at Fox News, they naturally fall in the province of kooky conspiracy theories.

Happy reading ~ National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

Cheney in Baghdad

Linguists tell us that the wonder of language involves its potential to accomplish infinite variation with finite means. But that has a frightening aspect when we see how many errors can be dropped into a single finite sentence.

To be fair, the core lie in the sentence belongs to Dick Cheney, not to John Burns, the author of the Times article. But Burns' drift down the river of Cheney's speech shows something about the object in what folks call objective journalism:

After a day of talks here with Iraq's fractious political leaders, Vice President Cheney said Wednesday that he detected a 'greater sense of urgency' among them in tackling a list of divisive issues that the Bush administration sees as the key to any sustained progress against the country's insurgent and militia groups."

(John Burns. 5/10/2007 A12 NY TIMES)

Where does one begin?

Iraq's fractious political leaders -- Being fractious, the leaders are resistant to authority. We mean that they're not being quick or efficient enough about obeying the Americans. So if George Bush is not an Iraqi leader, then the term must apply to the leaders of the resistance forces that fight the Americans. Yet the only Iraqi that Burns will mention as a leader is Al Maliki, whom Bush periodically threatens to fire.

On the other hand, fractious may call to mind fractions, fragments and factions: terms that one might take to refer to divisiveness. So maybe Mr. Burns waxes poetic. Perhaps he wishes to indicate that the Iraqi leaders don't agree with each other like leaders in, say, Washington.

greater sense of urgency -- Let's picture this. Five years into war, with over 600,000 Iraqis known dead and casualty rates still rising, utilities still out, water still fouled, rates of cancers and deformities rising with the background radiation from the depleted uranium arms, Cheney pops over for a little surprise visit to catch his Iraqi charges off-guard and see whether they're motivated to get down to work. Anyone else in a similar situation would be panicked or homicidal, but Cheney appears to consider his Iraqis a particularly unruffled bunch, more concerned about a vice-presidential frown than the grocery store exploding with half a city block of a Saturday.

It might be worth mentioning that while Burns mentions "divisive issues" many times throughout the article, there's no mention of what those issues might be. Did Cheney see fit to mention these, whereas Burns felt they didn't mention publication; or did Cheney not mention them at all, and Burns saw little reason to ask?

Either way, in this article, the speed at which the issues might be addressed was important; the issues themselves were not. This seems particularly interesting in that the article indicates throughout that the issues have not been addressed either quickly or slowly.

sustained progress against . . . insurgent and militia groups -- Which militias, which insurgents? Progress, and particularly sustained progress suggests forward movement, undebatable improvement. But what direction can be considered improvement here? Cheney says "against insurgent and militia groups," but since Iraqis want the Americans to leave, surely they must prefer the insurgents and the militias or someone of that nature, even if it's only a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils, like voting democrat in an American election. Leaving aside the claims for "democracy in Iraq" as rhetorical flourish, progress against "insurgents" can hardly mean anything other than progress against the Iraqis. Of course, given the nature of conflicts in general and the history of this conflict in particular, it's hard to see how even this can constitute something "sustained" or "progressive."

Have I erred in trying to read this as an objective statement? After all, if no one expects me to believe a statement, is it really a lie? But the article is not on an editorial page, not marked out visually in any way to distinguish it from other news articles that purport to be objective.

Reading speculatively, between the lines, I suspect that Burns wishes to give the impression that Mr. Cheney is off in Iraq watching after my money, that those Iraqis are mischievous lesser partners who much be watched after, who fritter away the company money getting shot and squabbling while hardworking Blackwater people caretake them with slowly diminishing patience.

"Ah, this is a fine mess you've gotten me into."

I suspect further that Cheney and perhaps Burns and the Times have an idea that Americans may be losing patience with them, that this latest love-letter must mean that it's all those Iraqis' fault, but that Cheney's working on it and that they're promising to come around. Of course, the Times has the right to promote any idea or fantasy they wish, should this be their intent. But it seems a pity to promote it with all signals of being a news article, especially when falsehoods emerge from the wording itself in ways that one suspects must have been obvious to the professional editors who reviewed it.

snoitisnartT: FALLOUTs!

YOU MEET THE STRANGEST PEOPLE

DUST ANGELS: FALLOUTs!

DEAR ANGEL OF DUST…?

The President's brother Neil is making hay from school reform

Across the country, some teachers complain that President George W. Bush's makeover of public education promotes "teaching to the test." The President's younger brother Neil takes a different tack: He's selling to the test. The No Child Left Behind Act compels schools to prove students' mastery of certain facts by means of standardized exams. Pressure to perform has energized the $1.9 billion-a-year instructional software industry.

Now, after five years of development and backing by investors like Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal and onetime junk-bond king Michael R. Milken, Neil Bush aims to roll his high-tech teacher's helpers into classrooms nationwide. He calls them "curriculum on wheels," or COWs. The $3,800 purple plug-and-play computer/projectors display lively videos and cartoons: the XYZ Affair of the late 1790s as operetta, the 1828 Tariff of Abominations as horror flick. The device plays songs that are supposed to aid the memorization of the 22 rivers of Texas or other facts that might crop up in state tests of "essential knowledge."

Bush's Ignite! Inc. has sold 1,700 COWs since 2005, mainly in Texas, where Bush lives and his brother was once governor. In August, Houston's school board authorized expenditures of up to $200,000 for COWs. The company expects 2006 revenue of $5 million. Says Bush about the impact of his name: "I'm not saying it hasn't opened any doors. It may have helped with some sales."

(In September, the U.S. Education Dept.'s inspector general accused the agency of improperly favoring at least five publishers, including The McGraw-Hill Companies, which owns BusinessWeek. A company spokesman says: "Our reading programs have been successful in advancing student achievement for decades; that's why educators hold them in such high regard.")

The stars haven't always aligned for Bush, but at times financial support has. A foundation linked to the controversial Reverend Sun Myung Moon has donated $1 million for a COWs research project in Washington (D.C.)-area schools. In 2004 a Shanghai chip company agreed to give Bush stock then valued at $2 million for showing up at board meetings. (Bush says he received one-fifth of the shares.) In 1988 a Colorado savings and loan failed while he served on its board, making him a prominent symbol of the S&L scandal. Neil calls himself "the most politically damaged of the [Bush] brothers."

While hardly the first brother to embarrass a President — remember Billy Carter's Billy Beer or Roger Clinton's cocaine? — Neil could be the first to seek profit from a hallmark Presidential crusade. And also that of a governor: Jeb makes school standards a centerpiece in Florida, too.

Neil says he never talks shop with his brothers. He attributes his interest in education to his struggles with dyslexia. His son, Pierce, also had difficulties in school, he says. "Not one of our investors has ever asked for any kind of special access — a visa, a trip to the Lincoln Bedroom, an autographed picture, or anything."

By STAFF, Business Week

More Moon Money Flows to Bush Family

We are honored to welcome Larry Zilliox as a guest front pager. He is the president of Investigative Research Specialists, a private investigation company based in Bristow, Virginia. He has done extensive research on the Moon empire, following the money trail through public records and other sources. – FC

[image,right: George Bush Senior speaking at a 1996 Moon sponsored event]

As followers of Rev. Sun Myung Moon pray for a presidential pardon for their aging Messiah's felony tax-fraud conviction in the 1980s, the latest tax filing of the Washington Times Foundation has become available. The return covers the months from April 2005 through March 2006 and shows a $100,000 contribution from the foundation to the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy.

The Washington Times was founded by Moon and has been subsidized by Moon-controlled interests.

The only larger donation made by the foundation in that year was to another entity closely associated with Moon, the American Family Coalition, Inc. which received $219,000.

[image,right: still from video clip of George and Barbara Bush greeting Sun Myung Moon and his wife at a Moon event, backstage at the Tokyo Dome, 1995]

Funding for the Washington Times Foundation comes primarily from the mysterious International Peace Foundation (IPF). The source of the funds IPF donated to the Washington Times Foundation are not known and most likely are untraceable because IPF does not appear to be a legally incorporated entity. The IPF address listed in the Washington Times Foundation tax return is the Unification Movement-owned building at 7777 Leesburg Pike in Falls Church Virginia. A check of the Internal Revenue Service online directory of organizations recognized as exempt failed to find a listing for IPF. A check of GuideStar database of non-profit organizations also found no listing.

IPF was originally incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1988. A check of the District of Columbia online corporate registrations web page shows the status of IPF as "Revoked." District of Columbia corporate records identify Moon's long time right-hand man Bo Hi Pak as an original officer of the organization. Pak has a history of leading many Moon connected businesses and non-profit organizations in the Washington, DC area. One of the oldest organizations with which Pak is associated is the Korean Cultural Freedom Foundation. Pak, serving as Chairman, mismanaged the organization so badly it fell victim to one of the largest Nigerian Fraud Scams in US history. In 2001 and 2002 the Korean Cultural Freedom Foundation reported in it's IRS Form 990 tax return that it had lost nearly $3,000,000 to scammers.

In Virginia, where the Washington Times Foundation tax form lists IPF's current address, the Virginia State Corporation Commission records show the status for IPF as revoked in 2004. The Commission's online database of corporate registrations indicates the online record details for the entity have been purged from their system as of 12/31/2004.

This revelation of money donated to a charity associated with the Bush family is just the latest in a string of donations and payments dating back more than ten years. George H. W. Bush has had a long association with Moon going back to just after he left office. In September 1995 Bush and his wife gave a number of speeches in Asia for the Women's Federation for World Peace an organization headed by Moon's wife Hak Ja Han Moon. In November 1996 Bush spoke in Buenos Aires at a banquet honoring the opening of Moon's South American newspaper Tiempos del Mundo Bush refused to disclose how much he was paid for his Moon-sponsored speaking tour.

In 2003 the Washington Times Foundation funneled a $1,000,000 donation to the Bush Presidential Library through the Greater Houston Community Foundation. In 2005 the Moon sponsored Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace made a donation of $1,000,000, it's largest donation of the year, to the senior Bush's Points of Light Foundation for Hurricane Katrina relief.

The Bush 2005 Inaugural Committee received the maximum $250,000 donation from Moon's Washington Television Center the entity that owns the large office building at 650 Massachusetts Avenue in the District of Columbia. In December 2005 the President's younger brother, Neil, was spotted touring Taiwan and the Philippines with Moon. Less than a year later Business Week published an article titled "No Bush Left Behind" profiling Neil Bush's company Ignite!, Inc. The company sells a high tech teaching aid called "Curriculum on Wheels" or COWs. The article states "A foundation linked to the controversial Reverend Sun Myung Moon has donated $1 million for a COWs research project in Washington (D.C.)-area schools."

From non-profit tax returns and media reports we see that at least $3,335,000 has flowed from the Unification Movement to Bush family members or charities since George W. Bush has taken office.

By Larry Zilliox

MAYDAY: FALLOUTs!

MAYDAY - MAYDAY - MAYDAY

Venezuela siezes big oil companies

PUERTO PIRITU, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuela stripped the world's biggest oil companies of operational control over massive Orinoco Belt crude projects on Tuesday, a vital move in President Hugo Chavez's nationalization drive.

The May Day takeover came exactly a year after Bolivian President Evo Morales, a leftist ally of Chavez, startled investors by ordering troops to seize his country's gas fields, accelerating Latin America's struggle to reclaim resources.

"The importance of this is that we are taking back control of the Orinoco Belt which the president rightly calls the world's biggest crude reserve," said Marco Ojeda, an oil union leader before a planned rally to mark the transfer.

The four projects are valued at more than $30 billion and can convert about 600,000 barrels per day (bpd) of heavy, tarry crude into valuable synthetic oil.

U.S. companies ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Britain's BP, Norway's Statoil and France's Total agreed to obey a decree to transfer operational control on Tuesday, although the OPEC nation complained ConocoPhillips was somewhat resistant.

In Puerto Piritu, near the facilities that refine Orinoco crude, workers prepared early on Tuesday to celebrate the takeovers, displaying Venezuelan red, blue and yellow flags and daubing a wall with Chavez's slogan: "Homeland, Socialism or Death."

The anti-American leader was also in a festive mood before a rally marking what he called the end of an era of U.S.-prescribed policies that opened up the largest oil reserves in the hemisphere to foreign investment.

"Open investment will never return," he said on Monday to thousands of cheering workers dressed in the signature red of his self-styled leftist revolution at a rally for workers rights.

"We are sealing up that open investment era and burying it deep down in the Orinoco oil reserve," he added.

Buoyed by an oil price bonanza in the No. 5 crude exporter to the United States, Chavez is popular among the majority poor for spending freely on schools, clinics and food handouts.

The man who calls Cuban leader Fidel Castro his mentor has vowed to take at least 60 percent of the projects, radicalizing his policies as he rules by decree and politicizes the army, state oil company and judiciary.

TOUGH TALKS

In the oil projects, the companies have agreed to hand over operations but are still discussing continued shareholding and compensation in sometimes contentious negotiations before a deadline next month.

Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez has said there may not be compensation in some cases and that Venezuela will only consider agreements on the booked value of the projects rather than their much larger current net worth.

Although Venezuela claims output of more than 3 million bpd, analysts reckon it strains to pump 2.6 million bpd. U.S. data peg it as the world's No. 8 exporter.

Industry analysts fear Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA could ultimately run into production and safety problems when it loses the management and technology of the experienced majors.

As he shrinks the private companies' role, Chavez has formed joint ventures with allies such as China, Belarus and Iran involving many state entities that are unfamiliar with developing such crude.

Still, Chavez hailed Tuesday's takeovers as the South American nation reclaiming its sovereignty."The wheel has turned full circle," he said. "Long live PDVSA, long live the workers of PDVSA."

By Brian Ellsworth

***** This headline doesn't fit its piece.

Had Chavez seized the oil companies, as Castro did with major corporations in Cuba following their disagreement over government controls, executives would have little to do discussing compensation and benefits. The news here is not only that Chavez has indeed seized a controlling interest in the companies, but that this was done with substantial compromise.

Also, the figures on Venezuela's output and current sales do not properly convey its importance as an oil vendor. Many estimates place its reserves as the greatest in the world. Moreover, should the US decide to maintain reasonably good relations, Venezuelan reserves may be more reliable than Middle Eastern oil, being located far closer to the US and in a region that we have currently destabilized to a lesser degree.

The author doesn't state which experts worry how Venezuela will get the crude out of the ground, but one imagines they can pay for the service should they need to -- that is, unless the price of crude takes a very deep plunge.

And if it comes to further negotiations during Chavez' tenure, the oil companies might not get the sweetheart deal they've had in the past.

Venezuela Pulling Out of IMF, World Bank

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez announced Monday he would formally pull Venezuela out of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, a largely symbolic move because the nation has already paid off its debts to the lending institutions.

"We will no longer have to go to Washington nor to the IMF nor to the World Bank, not to anyone," said the leftist leader, who has long railed against the Washington-based lending institutions.

Chavez said he wanted to formalize Venezuela's exit from the two bodies "tonight and ask them to return what they owe us."

Venezuela recently repaid its debts to the World Bank five years ahead of schedule, saving $8 million. It paid off all its debts to the IMF shortly after Chavez first took office in 1999. The IMF closed its offices in Venezuela late last year.

Chavez made the announcement a day after telling a meeting of allied leaders that Latin America overall would be better off without the U.S.-backed World Bank or IMF. He has often blamed their lending policies for perpetuating poverty.

The leftist president also has repeatedly criticized past Venezuelan governments for signing structural adjustment agreements with the IMF that were blamed for contributing to racing inflation.

Under former Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez in 1989, violent protests broke out in Caracas in response to IMF austerity measures that brought a hike in subsidized gasoline prices and public transport fares.

Enraged people took over the streets in violence that killed at least 300 people—and possibly many more. The riots came to be known as the "Caracazo," and Chavez often refers to it as a rebellion against the status quo.

Dow Highs Create False Hopes

It looks like a cause for celebration: The Dow Jones industrial average surged from 12,000 to 13,000 in just six months. But appearances can be deceiving, and there may be more reason to worry rather than rejoice about Wall Street's latest accomplishment...

Dow Ends Above 13,000 for First Time As Earnings Reports Push Stock Market to Historic Heights

Stronger-than-expected profits from several large companies helped push the stock market to historic heights. But many big corporations, including the Dow components, made a chunk of that money overseas, where economies are growing faster than in the U.S. And many of the same worries that weighed on investors earlier in the year remain: rising energy costs, a slumping housing market and a possible credit crunch.

The stock market's best-known indicator surged past its latest milestone shortly after trading began Wednesday, and even made it past 13,100, rising as high as 13,107.45. According to preliminary calculations, it closed at 13,087.46 up 133.52 or 1.03 percent.

Chavez: Troops to escort oil takeovers

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez said Thursday that soldiers will accompany government officials when they take over oil projects in the Orinoco River basin next month.

Chavez has decreed that Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, will take a minimum 60 percent stake in four heavy-oil projects in the Orinoco River region and invited the six private companies operating there to stay on as minority partners.

"On May 1 we are going to take control of the oil fields," Chavez said. "I'm sure no transnational company is going to draw a shotgun, but we will go with the armed forces and the people."

The projects — run by BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, France's Total SA and Norway's Statoil ASA — upgrade heavy, tar-like crude into more marketable oils and are considered Venezuela's most promising. As older fields elsewhere go into decline, development of the Orinoco is seen as key to Venezuela's future production.

Negotiations over the takeover have yet to yield an agreement and are expected to be difficult as the companies seek a deal that takes into account more than $17 billion in investments and loans related to the projects.

Chavez has been given special powers by congress for 18 months to issue laws by decree in energy and other areas, which he has also used to nationalize the country's biggest telecommunications company and electricity company.

Chavez has justified the nationalizations as necessary to give the government control of sectors strategic to Venezuela's interests.

The New Russian Revolution

'I am plotting a New Russian Revolution'

Ian Cobain, Matthew Taylor and Luke Harding in Moscow

The Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has told the Guardian he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain after forging close contacts with members of Russia's ruling elite.

In comments which appear calculated to enrage the Kremlin, and which will further inflame relations between London and Moscow, the multimillionaire claimed he was already bankrolling people close to the president who are conspiring to mount a palace coup.

"We need to use force to change this regime," he said. "It isn't possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure." Asked if he was effectively fomenting a revolution, he said: "You are absolutely correct."

Although Mr Berezovsky, with an estimated fortune of £850m, may have the means to finance such a plot, and although he enjoyed enormous political influence in Russia before being forced into exile, he said he could not provide details to back up his claims because the information was too sensitive.

Last night the Kremlin denounced Mr Berezovsky's comments as a criminal offence which it believed should undermine his refugee status in the UK.

Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin's chief spokesman, said: "In accordance with our legislation [his remarks are] being treated as a crime. It will cause some questions from the British authorities to Mr Berezovsky. We want to believe that official London will never grant asylum to someone who wants to use force to change the regime in Russia."

It will not be the first time the British government has faced accusations from the Kremlin that it is providing a safe haven for Mr Berezovsky. When he told a Moscow radio station last year that he wanted to see Mr Putin overthrown by force, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told the Commons that "advocating the violent overthrow of a sovereign state is unacceptable" and warned the tycoon he could be stripped of his refugee status.

Russian authorities subsequently sent an extradition request to London. That failed, however, when a district judge ruled Mr Berezovsky could not be extradited as long as he has asylum status.

In an interview with the Guardian, however, Mr Berezovsky goes much further than before, claiming to be in close contact with members of Russia's political elite who, he says, share his view that Mr Putin is damaging Russia by rolling back democratic reforms, smothering opposition, centralising power and flouting the country's constitution.

"There is no chance of regime change through democratic elections," he says. "If one part of the political elite disagrees with another part of the political elite - that is the only way in Russia to change the regime. I try to move that."

While declining to describe these contacts - and alleging that they would be murdered if they were identified - he maintained that he was offering his "experience and ideology" to members of the country's political elite, as well as "my understanding of how it could be done". He added: "There are also practical steps which I am doing now, and mostly it is financial."

Mr Berezovsky said he was unconcerned by any threat to strip him of his refugee status. "Straw wasn't in a position to take that decision. A judge in court said it wasn't in the jurisdiction of Straw."

He added that there was even less chance of such a decision being taken following the polonium-210 poisoning last November of his former employee, Alexander Litvinenko. "Today the reality is different because of the Litvinenko case."

Mr Berezovsky, 61, a former mathematician, turned to business during the Yeltsin years and made his fortune by capturing state assets at knockdown prices during Russia's rush towards privatisation.

Although he played a key role in ensuring Mr Putin's victory in the 2000 presidential elections, the two men fell out as the newly elected leader successfully wrested control of Russia back from the so-called oligarchy, the small group of tycoons who had come to dominate the country's economy.

A few months after the election Mr Berezovsky fled Russia, and applied successfully for asylum in the UK after Mr Litvinenko, an officer with the KGB's successor, the FSB, came forward to say he had been ordered to murder the tycoon.

Mr Berezovsky changed his name to Platon Elenin, Platon being the name of a character in a Russian film based loosely upon his life. He was subsequently given a British passport in this name.

As well as claiming to be financing and encouraging coup plotters in Moscow, Mr Berezovsky said he had dedicated much of the last six years to "trying to destroy the positive image of Putin" that many in the west held, portraying him whenever possible as a dangerously anti-democratic figure. He said he had also opposed the Russian president through Kommersant, the influential Russian newspaper which he controlled until last year.

Last month Mr Berezovsky was questioned by two detectives from the Russian prosecutor general's office who were in London to investigate the death of Mr Litvinenko. He has denied claims that he refused to answer many of their questions.

Last night the Kremlin said Russian authorities might want to question him again in the light of his interview with the Guardian. "I now believe our prosecutor general's office has got lots of questions for Mr Berezovsky," said Mr Peskov. He added: "His words are very interesting. This is a very sensitive issue."

The Foreign Office said it had nothing to add to Mr Straw's comments of last year.

· Audio: Berezovsky on change in Russia (25 secs)

· Audio: Berezovsky on his personal safety (34 secs)