Sunday, February 24, 2013

US Supreme Court DENIES application to vacate stay in StopNDAA lawsuit.

US Supreme Court DENIES application to vacate stay in StopNDAA lawsuit.

Posted onFebruary 21, 2013 byStopNDAA
ndaa-supreme-court
This means that the emergency stay which was placed on Judged Forrests’ injunction against Section 1021 and indefinite detention will remain in effect.
Now we wait on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling.
View the Supreme Court’s Order
More thoroughly: THIS is what happened:
Our attorneys asked the Supreme Court to consider lifting the “stay” on our injunction against Section 1021 and indefinite detention. As you’ll recall, we won our lawsuit last September and were granted a worldwide injunction against this provision – ensuring people could not be indefinitely detained under the sweeping and unchecked scope of the NDAA.
Despite having issued a signing statement in January of 2012 claiming he would not use these powers against American citizens, Obama immediately appealed Judge Forrest’s ruling and our win, then went further and asked her to grant a stay on the injunction, essentially “lifting” that injunction. She refused.
Next, the DOJ attorneys went to the second circuit court and asked them to lift the stay as well, claiming “irreparable harm” would be incurred by the US if the government did not have these unchecked powers. The second circuit court judges granted their request and put a stay on our injunction.
We applied to both Justice Ginsberg (who said no) and Justice Scalia (who said yes) to convene a conference of the entire Supreme Court to consider lifting that stay and restoring our injunction. They told us yesterday that they will not lift the stay – indefinite detention under the NDAA stands.
Now, it is up to us to convince the media in time to cover the TRUTH about the AUMF and the NDAA and what the United States government has been doing, and why they needed to conflate these two laws, and why they think they are allowed to have unchecked powers to detain anyone, anywhere based on suspicion alone.

Amirahmadi has established a website, Amirahmadi.com, on which he is raising money that Timmerman insists will be used in his current effort to run as a candidate for president of Iran, in apparent violation of U.S. sanctions against the country. The website page makes no mention of the purpose to which the funds donated will be applied. The website, however, suggests Amirahmadi is running for president of Iran, soliciting volunteers as well as financial contributions, under the campaign-like slogan “For Real Change in Iran.” Screen shot of Amirahmadi website soliciting contributions Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/hagel-has-promoted-agenda-of-the-enemy/#Aix8tTISjoExxbHc.99

Amirahmadi has established a website, Amirahmadi.com, on which he is raising money that Timmerman insists will be used in his current effort to run as a candidate for president of Iran, in apparent violation of U.S. sanctions against the country.
The website page makes no mention of the purpose to which the funds donated will be applied. The website, however, suggests Amirahmadi is running for president of Iran, soliciting volunteers as well as financial contributions, under the campaign-like slogan “For Real Change in Iran.”
Screen shot of Amirahmadi website soliciting contributions

Three Reasons Conservatives are Losing the Battle for America

Three Reasons Conservatives are Losing the Battle for America

By J. Paul Masko, III
1. The Electorate
The Republicans may as well stop their soul-searching and look at the reality of the Democrat electorate.  In addition to those Republican voters who stayed home on Election Day, the hard-core (so-called) progressives, the inadequate Republican ground game, and those who pay little or no federal tax and are happy to elect those who promise to take larger sums from those who DO pay, there's a more profound and possibly intractable problem.  From my countless discussions with Democrats/liberals, it seems clear that many, many voters - we will never be sure of their numbers - neither hear, nor are interested in hearing, the stance of conservatives or Republicans.  I'm often incredulous at the self-satisfied political ignorance and gullibility of successful, otherwise high-functioning and intellectually curious Democrats.  The range and depth of their ignorance regarding easily ascertainable facts is astounding ("No, President Obama has NOT increased the deficit: that's a lie!  For your information, President Obama has spent less than any President in history!"); and many, in my experience, cite the New York Times as their irrefutable source of information, with phrases like: "The Times didn't mention it so it can't be true or relevant...."
For these people, it really doesn't matter what conservatives or Republicans think or say: they won't hear it!  Republican positions are totally lost - unheard and meaningless - to a growing number of the electorate, including huge swaths of highly-educated and effective leaders in society.  It would be understating the issue to note that the Republican/conservative "brand" has been sullied - but it begins to convey the nature of the problem: it's more accurate to say that the Republican/conservative brand has been effectively nullified for many people.  For a growing number of voters, it doesn't matter what Republicans say: they have bought into the idea - nurtured by the press, educators at every level, and almost the entire entertainment industry - that Republicans are the "bad guys".  Furthermore, and possibly more disturbing, is the fact that this apparently mushrooming group of voters is largely unaware of and unconcerned about their stance.
Imagine trying to discuss the strengths of Judaism with members of the Hitler Youth, or the weaknesses of Mao's Great Leap Forward with a cadre of the Red Guard: would your ideas be heard and rationally considered?  Or suppose you were running for office and these youngsters could vote: would they vote for you? When you discovered that you'd lost their vote and consequently an election, would you then ask yourself, for example, whether the ideas or nature of Judaism were at fault for your inability to persuade them?
That's about the level of it with much of the U.S. electorate: they've totally bought into the liberal stance - which these days includes refusing to hear or even consider ideas of the blacklisted opposition - and there's no indication that they'll be coming back to a more rational stance. 
They proclaim themselves compassionate but really don't care if the "bad guys" are emotionally or physically hurt.  And there's a typical structure to their answers in response to interrogations about their reputed compassion: first the distancing phrase, then the conjunction, and finally the seemingly reasonable explanation.  (A couple typical answers: "Of course nobody would condone such violent behavior but I also don't hear too many people upset about his absence"...or... "We should never turn to violence as an answer but who can blame them for getting upset".)  An example to illustrate the point: although You may recall that a couple Republicans were savagely beaten in apparent political violence in New Orleans after a Republican fund raiser in 2010, I can guarantee you that essentially none of your Democrat friends do.
To call these people "zealots" would be overstating their political energy, but calling them "partisans" is somehow off point. Many of them, but for their political stance, would be considered bright or knowledgeable, as I'm sure were many of the Hitler Youth, the Red Guard and members of like organizations, who were often specially selected for their academic, athletic and social skills.
While some of these people may have limited political knowledge, they all know something really, really well: Republicans and conservatives are bad guys, should not be listened to, and will make everything worse. If you're a Republican or a conservative, it doesn't matter what you say because, if it comes out of your mouth, it's wrong.
When I was young, it was a matter of pride that we'd try to familiarize ourselves with both sides of an argument: my teachers mostly attempted to present alternative views fairly and encouraged us to research opposing political stances independently.  Now educators at every level mostly seem to expect adherence to the liberal/Democrat position, and both challenge (even threaten) those who disagree, and create an environment where alternative views and their proponents are mocked (or worse). 
So Republicans and conservatives, I'd say the same thing to you that I'd say to a Rabbi rejected by the Hitler Youth: if you think that the Democrats heard, digested and rejected your arguments in the last election, you're deluded. Your brand is so soiled that you will not be heard by this generation...short of a calamity on the order of the one that befell the Nazis.  Your misreading of the times and the situation is startling. You look like bewildered youngsters trying to please a psychotic mother, looking for cues in an electorate and media that derides and, in many cases, despises you. In terms of convincing the electorate of the good sense of your positions, there may not be workable solutions: but take a first step by facing the truth: you have allowed the culture to drift for decades, and one feature of the drift is the acceptability of determined mindlessness...including the mindless rejection of you and whatever it is that you proclaim. You still have a substantial choir to whom you preach...but probably a larger counter-choir that not only doesn't hear you but aggressively covers its ears when you speak.
2. Media Bias
The fact is that while there has never been a pure news delivery system, it was much, much cleaner 60 years ago.  One could have argued the case several decades ago that there was such an entity as "news", but it makes no sense to call these groups "news" organizations anymore.  A more sensible approach would be to say that there's hot, warm, cool and cold information, and that the mainstream press and the left are the arbiters of what will be hot, cold, etc.  If the press decides that a particular story does not fit their world-view or plan, the story becomes "cold", is ignored and, to the acolytes, doesn't exist.  Examples would be The New York Times ignoring the Benghazi story or "Fast and Furious" for extended periods; when they finally reported on these, they had lots of ways, as always, to effect their spin: story placement and flow, leaving out facts that might be inconsistent with their world-view, interviewing those with known sympathy to their stance and then editing the interviews for greatest New-York-Times-style impact.  Since so many news organizations and acolytes look to the Times to define worthy/unworthy stories, advance the "proper" spin, etc., much of the country, including many Republicans, believe that they've heard the full story after having read The Times (and The Washington Post).  I've been told several times - although it always amazes me - that a particular event "never happened"...with the explanation that "The Times didn't mention it...."  Because this situation has been in place without effective challenge for so long, it's second-nature to the (so-called) reporters involved in creating and perpetuating it: to most of them, the idea that they have a political slant that finds expression in their news stories would be obviously bogus...not worth wasting a moment pondering.
"What?? Are you claiming that there's a conspiracy among these journalists???"  No: it's group-think!  Imagine the Jewish fellow noted above speaking to a Nazi Youth club and later finding that essentially all of them had a negative reaction to his presentation.  Would that be a conspiracy?  Or how about someone identified as a "Petit Bourgeois" delivering a roundly rejected lecture on the benefits of capitalism to a group of Bolsheviks: although they all found his ideas wrong-headed, would their rejection reflect a conspiracy?  I don't think so.
Republicans and conservatives: you are playthings of the mainstream media and they can totally have their way with you, no matter your observations or objections.  And the most interesting part of living in such a one-sided media environment for so long is that the vast majority of Republicans (and many conservatives) will, like obedient puppies, follow the media lead. The bottom line: you Republicans and conservatives are powerless in defining or moving the debate: the mainstream media along with the liberals and Democrats essentially totally define the issues, the responses to the issues, which events to focus on or ignore, etc.  And their chosen topics and slants can be very bizarre indeed.  But you have nothing to do with it!  You're powerless!  Impotent!  The sooner you face this fact, the sooner you might find a productive path ahead.
And one other note about the mainstream media: because you Republicans and conservatives are so impotent and because they identify, define and massage (or ignore) the stories consistent with their world view, it stands to reason that anyone can be tarnished and destroyed by them.  Anyone!: Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, a reincarnated Jesus Christ, and you and any of your colleagues: it's simply a matter of who is picked out and how thoroughly he or she needs to be destroyed.  If the target will cooperate and absent himself or herself, it's often unnecessary - a waste of time and resources - to continue the assault.
Likewise, if the mainstream media and the left decide to ignore a scandal or other situation, for a large percentage of the population - including many who are otherwise well informed and high-functioning - it won't exist: there's essentially nothing that you conservatives and Republicans can do about it.  In related fashion, if the left and mainstream media decide to re-route information or assign blame idiosyncratically, their version will quickly become the accepted explanation for a large percentage of the populace.  It's why George W. Bush is largely to blame for the mortgage crisis, (supposed) global warming, increased violent crime, persistent racism and all manner of other difficulties.  Scapegoats are a beautiful thing for people who don't want to face themselves or grow up and, in a lopsided information system like ours, there is neither a shortage of scapegoats nor a practical limit to the extent of blame that one scapegoat can absorb.  If you think that this plum George Bush-Sarah Palin-scapegoat-era is over, think again.  And, more to the point, you Republicans and conservatives have nothing whatever to say about it.
So stop with the, "If we'd only nominated" somebody, he or she would be "so much less vulnerable" to attacks than the person we nominated; and stop the, "It's such a shame that he keeps opening his mouth and sticking his foot in it...."  If some other person had been nominated, he or she would have been destroyed if he didn't fit the media paradigm: and then you'd be complaining that yet another candidate should have been nominated.  Face it, Republicans and conservatives: you have nothing to say about who gets pilloried in the press and who doesn't, or what the issues will be, and there's essentially nothing you can do to change it: all of that is decided by people who disagree with and often despise you.  So you may as well stop your automatic genuflections to the liberals/Democrats by beating each other up.  (From a distance, though, you have to admit that it must be a gas to be able to call the shots for your opponents...to get them to hop and dance on cue, to self-flagellate, to start fighting with each other or join in the carnage.)
3. Techniques
A third element that makes the position of Republicans and conservatives almost untenable is the range of techniques for destroying them that are accepted by many Americans and the mainstream press.  The most effective and destructive technique is so-called "political correctness", a method of silencing those who disagree with a group or party controlling the political agenda: it's a technique that depends on a constant reinforcing dialogue between the media and compliant citizens.  Political correctness is a capital political concept because: the participants silently acquiesce to its dictates; it's a self-modulating system where groups of people self-monitor and groom each other into conformity; through unspoken or overt threats of censure, it propagates itself; and, among the willing, it inevitably leads to the control of thought.  If we freely restrict our speech to only "allowed" topics, in short order we restrict our thinking as well.  In the end there is no more powerful political tool than thought control, which is why mastery and management of information is a central issue in all totalitarian regimes.  What has required the overt elimination or forced domination of media outlets in most autocratic regimes has been yielded up easily by our group-think media, who now march along in near lockstep while trumpeting their independence.  Political correctness must be a beautiful thing to behold if you're a politician inclined toward domination.
Another technique is the investigation and censure of politicians and groups who don't fit the media or left wing paradigm, while ignoring or manipulating scandalous information on political allies.  When potentially damaging information about left wing allies is ignored by the mainstream media, it simply "doesn't exist" to growing numbers of otherwise well-informed acolytes.  This is why Sarah Palin is regarded as perhaps the most heinous and hated American politician today to a large portion of the population, while Bill Clinton is lionized and his wife may be the brightest woman in the western world.  With enough investigation and diligence, anyone can be destroyed and almost anyone can be elevated.  Again, who is destroyed and who idealized is totally within the control of the mainstream media and the left wing: conservatives and Republicans cannot substantially affect these processes because of the nullification of their brand advanced through the press, the entertainment media and educational institutions. 
Two elements exacerbate this technique for conservatives and Republicans: the fact that the left wing, because it views itself as having an essential and morally-superior "mission", excuses its unscrupulous destructive strategies (like, for example, essentially inventing and repeating false stories until they become part of the political landscape [such as bogus Tea-Party threats toward Congressmen]; attacking family members of antagonists; somehow "discovering" legitimately sealed information and dropping it over the transoms of friendly media; etc.); and the fact that Republicans and conservatives, so inured to being cogs in the left-wing-driven information system, leap in to play their roles of unwitting enablers in the destruction of their own.
A third technique - another favorite of despotic regimes like the Soviets in Eastern Europe - is "selective violence": physically harmful acts meant to both stop a political opponent and send a message to like-minded potential opponents.  This category includes such things as union attacks on Tea Party demonstrations; the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of the "Coptic Christian" on charges "unrelated" to his film; covert threats toward Chief Justice Roberts by national politicians on the eve of the health care decision; the use of government powers, like repeated, intensive tax audits against political enemies; etc.  It must be a comforting and, unfortunately for the body politic, "liberating" position for politicians and left-wing groups to know that no matter how many or how severe their physical or administrative attacks, these will be ignored by the mainstream press and consequently "not exist" for much of the population.
In a word, we are observing the regression of a culture...one that is moving away from sophistication and proudly stepping backward from civilizing attempts.  We have seen primitive behavior in our own culture and others: when people look to a label or a skin color as all that need be said about a person; when information from trusted sources of information are grossly biased so only one side is heard or even "exists"; and when physical or administrative violence against people is belittled, laughed at or ignored.  It's a cultural regression and, as the unifying, reassuring legal structures and precepts wither, as information sources become untrustworthy, and as physical and administrative violence worsens, it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.

Dr. Taitz, Esq. has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles. SCOTUS does to NDAA attorneys the same they did to me. Now US citizens can be kept in military installations indefinitely without trial base on a suspicion only. Welcome to the NAZI states of America. US Dept of “Injustice” and the Supreme Court follow the footsteps of the Dept of Justice and Supreme Court in NAZI Germany. Are you going to be silent about it? Posted on | February 24, 2013 | 6 Comments https://www.stopndaa.org/

Dr. Taitz, Esq. has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.

SCOTUS does to NDAA attorneys the same they did to me. Now US citizens can be kept in military installations indefinitely without trial base on a suspicion only. Welcome to the NAZI states of America. US Dept of “Injustice” and the Supreme Court follow the footsteps of the Dept of Justice and Supreme Court in NAZI Germany. Are you going to be silent about it?

Posted on | February 24, 2013 | 6 Comments
https://www.stopndaa.org/

DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns...

The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.
The DOJ memo (downloadable here as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.
The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.”
The NRA declined to explain how it obtained the document. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.
The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns.
DOJ memo states: “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation.
Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy.
The DOJ memo arrived a few weeks prior to a letter sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs. “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the sent to military veterans states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”
“US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both,” the Gateway Pundit remarked. Continue reading by Kurt Nimmo via Infowars...

Hagel has promoted agenda of the enemy' Nobel Peace Prize nominee says defense pick is pal to Iran Published: 6 hours ago author-image by Jerome R. Corsi Email | Archive rss feed Subscribe to feed Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?"More ↓ Printer Friendly Text smaller Text bigger 64 Ads by Google Obams's Gas Price Hike?Is president Obama to blame for gas prices? Vote here now. www.newsmax.com/surveys 130117hagelobama A former Nobel Peace Prize nominee warns that Senate confirmation of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense would send a message to Iran of weakened U.S. resolve, making it less likely America’s military might would in any way deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Going back to 2001, Hagel has been opposed to U.S. sanctions on Iran and in favor of recognizing the Islamic Republic in order to normalize trade relationships,” journalist and activist Ken Timmerman told WND. “Hagel has virtually made his position on Iran identical to the policies of the Iranian government, including a demand the U.S. enter direct negotiations with Iran ‘without preconditions’ and opposing the United States’ use of military force to block Iran’s nuclear weapons development program.” Ads by Google Say No to Obama's AmnestyDon't let Barack Obama give amnesty to illegals. Sign petition! Townhall.com/No-Amnesty Timmerman began in the Foundation for Democracy in Iran in 1995 as part of his ongoing support for freedom in the Islamic country and in 2006 was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Sweden’s former Deputy Prime Minister Per Ahlmark for playing a major role in exposing Iran’s plans to develop nuclear weapons. Discover the untold story of secret traitors and saboteurs working to undermine the U.S. from within in Ken Timmerman’s “Shadow Warriors” from the WND SuperStore! “If Hagel is confirmed as secretary of defense,” Timmerman argued, “we will have someone in charge of the U.S. military who has promoted the agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran, an enemy of the United States since 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran to begin the Iranian revolution.” Hagel has been a long-term supporter of the founder and president of the pro-Tehran lobbying group American-Iranian-Council, Housang Amirahmadi, who was disqualified by the Iranian Guardian Council from running for president of Iran in June 2005 and is currently running for president of Iran once again this year, despite being an American citizen. Hagel was keynote speaker at an American-Iranian Council event on Capital Hill event in 2001, which Timmerman insists was used by AIC as a fund-raiser. In the photo below, Amirahmadi is the second individual in the photograph seen at the podium with Hagel at the event. Chuck Hagel at American-Iranian Council event on Capital Hill, June 27, 2001 Amirahmadi has established a website, Amirahmadi.com, on which he is raising money that Timmerman insists will be used in his current effort to run as a candidate for president of Iran, in apparent violation of U.S. sanctions against the country. The website page makes no mention of the purpose to which the funds donated will be applied. The website, however, suggests Amirahmadi is running for president of Iran, soliciting volunteers as well as financial contributions, under the campaign-like slogan “For Real Change in Iran.” Screen shot of Amirahmadi website soliciting contributions The Iranian state-controlled media has welcomed Hagel’s nomination saying, “Hagel’s selection is a message of peace from the Obama administration to Islamic Republic of Iran,” and noting, “The new U.S. secretary of defense staunchly opposes military action against Iran.” On July 24, 2001, Hagel and former Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., were the only two votes to oppose the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, a measure that passed by a Senate vote of 96-2. In April 2006, in a speech given in Islamabad, Pakistan, Hegel said, “I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option. … I believe a political settlement will be the answer. Not a military settlement. All these issues will require a political settlement.” WND’s Aaron Klein has reported that Hagel serves on the board of the Ploughshares Fund, a George Soros-funded group that advocates a nuclear-free world and “is a partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Public Policies, which has urged the defunding of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S. defense capabilities, including slashing the American nuclear arsenal to 292 deployed weapons.” In 2012, Timmerman ran as a Republican Party nominee for the House of Representatives in the newly redrawn Maryland’s 8th Congressional District, losing to Democratic Party incumbent, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who has served as a Maryland congressman since 2003. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/hagel-has-promoted-agenda-of-the-enemy/#sMf3cLyKuU7tk9XB.99

Hagel has promoted agenda of the enemy'

Nobel Peace Prize nominee says defense pick is pal to Iran

A former Nobel Peace Prize nominee warns that Senate confirmation of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense would send a message to Iran of weakened U.S. resolve, making it less likely America’s military might would in any way deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“Going back to 2001, Hagel has been opposed to U.S. sanctions on Iran and in favor of recognizing the Islamic Republic in order to normalize trade relationships,” journalist and activist Ken Timmerman told WND. “Hagel has virtually made his position on Iran identical to the policies of the Iranian government, including a demand the U.S. enter direct negotiations with Iran ‘without preconditions’ and opposing the United States’ use of military force to block Iran’s nuclear weapons development program.”
Timmerman began in the Foundation for Democracy in Iran in 1995 as part of his ongoing support for freedom in the Islamic country and in 2006 was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Sweden’s former Deputy Prime Minister Per Ahlmark for playing a major role in exposing Iran’s plans to develop nuclear weapons.
Discover the untold story of secret traitors and saboteurs working to undermine the U.S. from within in Ken Timmerman’s “Shadow Warriors” from the WND SuperStore!
“If Hagel is confirmed as secretary of defense,” Timmerman argued, “we will have someone in charge of the U.S. military who has promoted the agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran, an enemy of the United States since 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran to begin the Iranian revolution.”
Hagel has been a long-term supporter of the founder and president of the pro-Tehran lobbying group American-Iranian-Council, Housang Amirahmadi, who was disqualified by the Iranian Guardian Council from running for president of Iran in June 2005 and is currently running for president of Iran once again this year, despite being an American citizen.
Hagel was keynote speaker at an American-Iranian Council event on Capital Hill event in 2001, which Timmerman insists was used by AIC as a fund-raiser.
In the photo below, Amirahmadi is the second individual in the photograph seen at the podium with Hagel at the event.
Chuck Hagel at American-Iranian Council event on Capital Hill, June 27, 2001
Amirahmadi has established a website, Amirahmadi.com, on which he is raising money that Timmerman insists will be used in his current effort to run as a candidate for president of Iran, in apparent violation of U.S. sanctions against the country.
The website page makes no mention of the purpose to which the funds donated will be applied. The website, however, suggests Amirahmadi is running for president of Iran, soliciting volunteers as well as financial contributions, under the campaign-like slogan “For Real Change in Iran.”
Screen shot of Amirahmadi website soliciting contributions
The Iranian state-controlled media has welcomed Hagel’s nomination saying, “Hagel’s selection is a message of peace from the Obama administration to Islamic Republic of Iran,” and noting, “The new U.S. secretary of defense staunchly opposes military action against Iran.”
On July 24, 2001, Hagel and former Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., were the only two votes to oppose the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, a measure that passed by a Senate vote of 96-2.
In April 2006, in a speech given in Islamabad, Pakistan, Hegel said, “I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option. … I believe a political settlement will be the answer. Not a military settlement. All these issues will require a political settlement.”
WND’s Aaron Klein has reported that Hagel serves on the board of the Ploughshares Fund, a George Soros-funded group that advocates a nuclear-free world and “is a partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Public Policies, which has urged the defunding of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S. defense capabilities, including slashing the American nuclear arsenal to 292 deployed weapons.”
In 2012, Timmerman ran as a Republican Party nominee for the House of Representatives in the newly redrawn Maryland’s 8th Congressional District, losing to Democratic Party incumbent, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who has served as a Maryland congressman since 2003.

DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com February 24, 2013 DOJ memo states: “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.” The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration. The DOJ memo (downloadable here as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction. The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.” The NRA declined to explain how it obtained the document. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation. The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns. It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation. A Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy. The DOJ memo arrived a few weeks prior to a letter sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs. “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the sent to military veterans states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).” “US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both,” the Gateway Pundit remarked. NRA’s Chris Cox talks about the DOJ memo:

DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 24, 2013

DOJ memo states: “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.
The DOJ memo (downloadable here as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.
The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.”
The NRA declined to explain how it obtained the document. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.
The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns.
It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation.
A Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy.
The DOJ memo arrived a few weeks prior to a letter sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs. “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the sent to military veterans states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”
“US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both,” the Gateway Pundit remarked.
NRA’s Chris Cox talks about the DOJ memo: 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jHmxY7zE5uc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1_LaBJvI0BI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 24, 2013

DOJ memo states: “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.
The DOJ memo (downloadable here as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.
The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.”
The NRA declined to explain how it obtained the document. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.
The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns.
It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation.
A Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy.
The DOJ memo arrived a few weeks prior to a letter sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs. “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the sent to military veterans states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”
“US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both,” the Gateway Pundit remarked.
NRA’s Chris Cox talks about the DOJ memo: 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jHmxY7zE5uc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1_LaBJvI0BI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

the windors are the ones killing us all they own all the food

This article appeared as part of a feature in the December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. See Feature Introduction and Table of Contents.

Control by the Food Cartel Companies:
Profiles and Histories

by Richard Freeman
Here are strategic profiles of 11 of the principal companies that constitute the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel. The profiles confirm that through multiple forms of concentration, these companies dominate grain, meat, dairy, and other food production, and the processing and distribution system of food, all the way to the supermarket. Very little food moves on the face of the earth without the food cartel having a hand in it.


#1 U.S. grain trader/exporter (25% of market, which is equivalent to Cargill exporting 25.1 million tons or 1.0 billion bushels of grain); #1 world grain trader/exporter (25% of market, which is equivalent to Cargill exporting 52.9 million tons, or 2.11 billion bushels of grain); #1 U.S. owner of grain elevators (340 elevators); #1 world cotton trader; #1 U.S. manufacturer of corn-based high-protein animal feeds (through subsidiary Nutrena Mills); #2 U.S. wet corn miller; #2 U.S. soybean crusher; #2 Argentine grain exporter (10% of market); #3 U.S. flour miller (18% of market); #3 U.S. meatpacker, through Excel division (18% of market); #3 U.S. pork packer/slaughterer; #3 U.S. commercial animal feeder; #3 French grain exporter (15-18% of market); #6 U.S. turkey producer.
Cargill raises 350,000 hogs, 12 million turkeys, and 312 million broiler chickens. In the United States, it owns 420 barges, 11 towboats, 2 huge vessels that sail the Great Lakes, 12 ocean-going ships, 2,000 railroad hopper cars, and 2,000 tank cars.
Cargill and its subsidiaries operate 800 plants. It has 500 U.S. offices, 300 foreign offices. It operates in 60 countries.
History: Shortly after the Civil War, William Cargill, a Scottish immigrant sea merchant, bought his first grain elevator in Conover, Iowa. In 1870, with his brother Sam, William Cargill bought grain elevators all along the Southern Minnesota Railroad, at a time when Minnesota was becoming an important shipping route. But Cargill's biggest break came when he bought elevators along the line of James J. Hill's Great Northern railroad line, which went west of Minneapolis, and into the Red River Valley as far as North Dakota, and also into South Dakota. Hill was the business partner of Ned Harriman (father of Averell Harriman), who became the business agent for England's Queen Victoria's son, Prince Edward, later King Edward VII. Through a preferential rebate system, and other arrangements, Hill's rail line helped build the Cargill operation.
Twice during the twentieth century, the Cargill firm nearly went under. William Cargill, Jr., the son of company founder Will Cargill, made some bad investments in Montana during the first decade of the twentieth century, and between 1909 and 1917, Cargill hovered on the brink of bankruptcy. Some British capital came in to rescue the company. William Cargill, Sr. had a daughter, Edna, who married John MacMillan. The financiers designated John MacMillan and the MacMillan family to come in and reorganize Cargill. This was the period in which the MacMillan family started running Cargill.
Cargill also nearly went under following the 1929 U.S. stock market crash, and ensuing Great Depression. There is not a word of what happened to Cargill Co. during the depression in the History of Cargill, 1865-1945. But two forces came to the rescue: John D. Rockefeller's Chase National Bank, which sent its officer John Peterson to help run Cargill. Peterson became Cargill's top officer. The other force was a Byelorussian Jewish grain merchant, Julius Hendel, who joined the company in the late 1920s. It would seem odd at first that a European, and a Jew at that, would be admitted into the inner councils of a rock-ribbed Scottish-American firm, but this indicates the international scope of forces that shape the grain trade. Hendel would later also school Dwayne Andreas, when Andreas worked for Cargill after World War II.
During the mid-1930s, Cargill used cut-throat tactics. In September 1937, corn was a scarce commodity. The 1936 American crop had been a failure, and the new crop would not be harvested until October. Cargill bought up every available corn future, to the tune of several millions of dollars, and created a squeeze on the market. The Chicago Board of Trade ordered Cargill to sell some of its futures to relieve the squeeze. Cargill refused. The CBOT expelled Cargill from the Board of Trade. The U.S. secretary of agriculture accused Cargill of trying to destroy the American corn market.
In 1922, Cargill had opened up a New York office; in 1929, it opened an Argentine office, and it continued to expand, especially after the Second World War, as the United States exported large quantities of grain to Europe and other parts of the globe. In 1953, Cargill established Tradax International in Panama to run its global grain trade. In 1956, it set up Tradax Genève in Geneva, Switzerland, as the coordinating arm of Tradax. Tradax subsidiaries were set up in Germany (Deutsche Tradax, GmbH), England (Tradax Limited), Japan (Tradax Limited), Australia (Tradax Limited), France (Compagnie Cargill S.A.), and so forth. Thirty percent of ownership of Tradax is held by old-line Venetian-Burgundian-Lombard banking families, principally the Swiss-based Lombard, Odier, and Pictet banks. The financier for Tradax is the Geneva-based Crédit Suisse, which has been cited repeatedly for drug-money laundering. On Feb. 7, 1985, the U.S. government caught Crédit Suisse and other large banks laundering $1.2 billion in illegal money—much of it suspected drug money—to the First National Bank of Boston.
In 1977, Cargill's involvement in a "black peseta"-laundering operation at Cargill's offices in Spain was revealed.
Cargill has been repeatedly cited for "blending"—that is, adding foreign matter to its grain. For example, an export contract may allow for 8% of the grain volume that a company is exporting to be foreign matter. If Cargill's grain load is only 6% foreign matter, it will mix in dirt and gravel. A Cargill superintendent told the Kansas City Times in July 1982, "If we've got a real clean load, we'll make sure we hold it until we can mix it with something dirtier. Otherwise, we'd be throwing away money."
Cargill has expanded into every major crop and livestock on the face of the earth, in over 60 countries. It has also expanded into coal, steel (it is America's seventh largest steel producer, owning LTV), waste disposal, and metals. Today, Cargill runs one of the 20 largest commodity brokerage firms in the United States, trading on the Chicago and world markets, which is larger than those of most Wall Street brokerage houses. Another division, Cargill Investor Services, has offices throughout the United States, as well as in London, Geneva, and Zurich.
Key personnel and policy: The combined Cargill and MacMillan families of Cargill own 90% of the company's stock (the rest is owned by company executives). They are one of the ten richest families in America: According to the July 17, 1995 Forbes magazine, the combined Cargill/MacMillan families are worth $5.1 billion, making them richer than the Mellons. Whitney MacMillan, W. Duncan MacMillan, John Hugh MacMillan III, and Cargill MacMillan, Jr., are each worth $570 million.
The British connections of the MacMillan family are evident. John Hugh MacMillan II (1895-1960) was the president of Cargill from 1936 until 1957, and was chairman from 1957 until 1960. He was a hereditary Knight Commander of Justice of the Sovereign Order of St. John, the chivalric order run by the international oligarchy grouped around the Anglo-Dutch monarchy. Whitney MacMillan, chairman of Cargill from 1976 until 1994, was educated at the exclusive British-modeled Blake School (where the chairman of General Mills was also educated), and then Yale University.
Showing the link with the gangster-ridden Democratic Party of Minnesota, Walter Mondale was elected a director of Cargill.
In 1983-84, the family-controlled Cargill Foundation contributed $50,000 to the University of Chicago's monetarist Economics Department.


#2 U.S. grain trader/exporter (20% of market), and #2 world grain trader/exporter (20% of market) (according to official Continental documents). #1 U.S. exporter of soybean products and derivatives (through joint venture called Conti-Quincy Export Co.); #1 world cattle feedlot operator (7 feedlots in southwestern and plains states of United States); #1 shrimp farm in Ecuador; reportedly #2 French grain exporter; #3 owner of U.S. grain elevators; #3 or #4 U.S. animal feed manufacturer (through subsidiary Wayne Feed Division); #3 or #4 world cotton exporter; #8 Argentine grain exporter (7% of market).
Continental processes and markets 2 billion pounds of poultry, beef, pork, and seafood, along with 5 million tons of animal feeds and wheat flour. The company transports nearly 75 million tons of grains, oilseeds, rice, cotton, and energy products annually, an amount that exceeds the annual production of almost every country in the world.
Continental owns a fleet of towboats and 500 river barges. It owns over 1,500 hopper cars. It has offices and plants in 50 countries, on 6 continents.
History: Simon Fribourg founded the predecessor organization as a commodity-trading company in Arlon, Belgium in 1813. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the Fribourg family went into milling, building mills in Luxembourg and Belgium, especially Antwerp, which, with its deep harbors and connections to the Rhine River, transported Fribourg flour and wheat to and from the rest of Europe. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Michel Fribourg, a great-grandson of founder Simon, went with bags of gold to Bessarabia (today Moldova and Romania) to buy grain. This was a large grain-producing region. By 1914, the heirs of the family, under the name Fribourg Frères, moved operations to London, to capitalize on the ability to trade grain internationally. In 1920, the headquarters moved again, this time to Paris, and the company's name changed to Compagnie Continentale. Thus, 100 years after its founding in 1813, the Continental Company had established firm links into the cities and channels of the European grain trade, as well as to Australia, through London.
In 1921, the Continental Company opened an office in Chicago, and another in New York. In 1930, it leased a terminal in Galveston, Texas. During the Depression of the 1930s, the Continental Company made out like bandits. As reported in one history, the head of the family, Jules Fribourg, instructed his New York agent to buy Midwest grain elevators, which were at depressed prices, with the instructions, "Don't bother to look at them—just buy them." The Fribourgs lived very, very well. René Fribourg, the co-head of the company, lived like a Medici prince, collected gold snuff boxes and Louis XV and Louis XVI furniture, and dined off eighteenth-century china. But when the Nazi Army invaded France in June 1940, the Fribourgs fled to America.
In 1968-69, the Fribourgs, working with the Cargill company, and through an agent of the grain cartel in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Clarence Palmby, helped destroy the American merchant fleet, by convincing President Nixon that the "50-50" provision, by which half of all American grain exports had to be carried on American vessels, should be abolished, in order to land a large Russian grain deal. Almost all of the grain went on Russian-bottom boats. Various favors paid off, for, in 1973, the Russians rewarded Continental by making an unprecedented purchase from the company of 6 million tons of grain and soybeans. The head of Continental was and remains Michel Fribourg. His personal financial adviser, Sasha Maximov, was the son of the last czarist ambassador to Constantinople, a post usually held by a Venetian agent.
In 1976, Continental was fined $500,000 for short-weighting ships. In the late 1970s, when Zaire, which was very poor, was unable to pay its bills, Continental cut off food shipments to that starving nation. In the 1970s, Continental became the first grain company to sell grain to China.
Key personnel and policy: The heir apparent of the company is Michel Fribourg's son, Paul, who, at the age of 41, is president of Continental. Michel Fribourg, great-great-grandson of Continental's founder, and his immediate family, own 90% of Continental's stock (other members of the Fribourg family own the rest). The Oct. 17, 1994 issue of Forbes magazine lists the worth of Michel Fribourg alone at $1 billion.


#1 French grain exporter; #3 world grain exporter; #4 U.S. grain exporter; #5 Argentine grain exporter (8% of market); #1 world exporter of grain to Russia.
Louis Dreyfus operates 47 vessels—bulk carriers, lakers, panamaxes, and chemical and natural gas carriers—worldwide.
History: Léopold Louis Dreyfus, who was born in Sierentz, France, set up his wheat trading operations in Basel, Switzerland, at the age of 19, in 1852. He bought wheat from Vojvodina plain, which went to Budapest, Hungary, for milling, then the milling capital of the world. He also purchased grain from Moldova and Wallachia (present-day Romania) and shipped it to Liverpool for milling. In the process, he became close friends with King Carol I of Romania, whom he charmed so much that he was appointed a councillor at the king's court. In the first decade of the 1900s, Léopold Louis Dreyfus was appointed Romania's consul to Paris.
Léopold Dreyfus also invested heavily in grain elevators and the grain trade in Odessa, Ukraine. He began importing Russian wheat into Marseilles, France. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, he was marketing grain through a network of offices in Hamburg, Bremen, Berlin, Mannheim, Duisburg, in Germany, and Paris, thus having a healthy share of the German market. Léopold Louis Dreyfus expanded into corn, barley, and other crops, and as a wholesaler of grain, dealt with Canada, Australia, and the United States. He moved to Paris, married a Florentine baroness, and ran a newspaper, L'Intransigent.
In the 1940s, the company was run by Jean, François, and Pierre Louis Dreyfus. After the Nazis liquidated France's Vichy government in 1942, Jean and François left for Argentina and Pierre for London.
Louis Dreyfus, although privately owned, is also a cooperative under French law. It owns 49% of the shares of the co-op Union Française des Céréales (UFC, better known as La Cooperative Lafayette). Under this arrangement, UFC sells French grain exclusively for itself and Dreyfus, both within the European Union and to third markets. This allows Dreyfus to obtain credit at low interest rates from the quasi-official French banking institution Crédit Agricole, which terms are not available to purely private corporations.
Louis Dreyfus also has a bank bearing its name, which in the 1970s rose to become the fifth largest private bank in France.
Key personnel and policy: The current head of the company is Gerard Louis Dreyfus. Gerard is the son of Pierre Louis Dreyfus and Pierre's first wife, who was the daughter of an American industrialist. Gerard was educated in the United States, attended Duke University, attended law school, and worked for a while at the organized crime-connected law firm Dewey Ballantine. Gerard now resides in France, and by conservative estimates, he and his immediate family are worth $0.5-1 billion.


#1 U.S. dry corn miller (through its subsidiary, Lauhoff Grain) (18% of the market); reportedly #1 Brazilian grain exporter; #2 U.S. soybean products (soymeal and soy oil) exporter; #3 U.S. grain exporter; #3 U.S. soybean processor; #4 world grain exporter; #4 U.S. grain elevator capacity; #7 Argentine grain exporter.
Bunge operates 50 grain elevators in the United States, most of them located along the Mississippi River from St. Louis to New Orleans. It also has a giant grain export elevator in Quebec City, Canada.
History: In 1750, in Amsterdam, the Bunge family had started trading hides, spices, and rubber from Dutch overseas colonies. After a century of lucrative trade in this area, in 1850, Charles Bunge moved the family business to Antwerp, Belgium. Charles's two sons established a merchant monarchy straddling the Atlantic Ocean. Edouard Bunge stayed in Antwerp, and Ernest Bunge emigrated to Argentina in 1876. With his brother-in-law George Born, Ernest established the firm Bunge and Born. In 1897, a Mannheim Jewish grain trader by the name of Alfred Hirsch joined the firm in Buenos Aires. In 1927, Hirsch became president of Bunge and Born, and held that position for 30 years.
Hirsch and others at Bunge and Born accumulated estancias—plantations of hundreds of thousands and even millions of acres of land, many in the rich soil region of the Pampas plains. The extent of Bunge and Born domination of the Argentine economy was revealed in 1974, when the Montoneros terrorists kidnapped the heirs to the firm, Jorge and Juan Born, and held them for many months. During the time that the brothers were held in captivity, they revealed that Bunge and Born not only dominated Argentina's agriculture, but also that Bunge companies produced 40% of Argentina's paint, one-third of its tin cans, 20% of its textiles, etc.
Argentine President Juan Perón attempted to suppress the power of Bunge and Born and other grain cartel companies in Argentina. When Perón became President for the first time in 1946, he moved to have the government buy the grain from the Argentine farmer and export it. The profits were used to finance the industrialization of Argentina. In 1948, he established the Institute for the Promotion of Trade (IAPI) to achieve this purpose. However, the grain cartel companies, weakened by Perón's reforms, wanted him out of power. In 1955, Perón was deposed and the IAPI system he had set up was disbanded. When Perón returned to power in 1973, he established a National Grain Board for the same purpose. Again, Perón was fiercely opposed by the grain cartel companies. He died in 1974, and was succeeded by his wife, Evita. In 1976, Evita Perón was overthrown. The National Grain Board was dismantled, and control of grain and meat exports was returned to the private grain companies.
In the meantime, Bunge diversified a large share of its capital into Brazil and the United States. However, the power of Bunge and Born is still strong in Argentina. The first two ministers of economy in the government of President Carlos Menem, were executives of Bunge and Born, first Mor Roig, and Nestor Rapanelli.
Key personnel and policy: The Born and Hirsch families, which run Bunge and Born today, are each conservatively estimated to be worth half a billion dollars.


#1 South African grain exporter; #5 world grain trader; #5 or #6 U.S. grain exporter.
History: Founded in 1877 by George André in Nyon, Switzerland. He imported hard durum wheat for pasta from Russia. The grain was unloaded at Marseilles and railed up to Switzerland. In 1937, Frederic Hediger, also Swiss, came to the United States and founded Garnac, using money from George André. Garnac became a subsidiary of the André Holding Company. In the 1970s, André was accused, along with Bunge Company, of wrecking the Spanish corn growers by importing corn at low prices into Spain from the United States. During the 1970s, after an embargo had been placed on the commercial activities of what was then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), André helped sell Rhodesian grain on the world market through illegal channels.
Key personnel and policy: Georges André, a member of a very strict Calvinist sect, lived, until he died in 1942 at the age of 86, in an Alping chalet in Gstaad, Switzerland. His neighbor was Axel Springer, the German publishing mogul. André's three sons, Henri, Pierre, and Eric, inherited the company. The André family is conservatively estimated to be worth more than $0.5 billion.


#1 U.S. soybean crusher (between 30 and 35% of market); #1 U.S. wet corn miller (approximately 50% of market); #1 world processor of combined grain and oil seed; #1 world producer of ethanol; #1 U.S. producer of corn-based additive (60% of market); #2 U.S. flour miller (23% of market); #2 in U.S. grain elevator capacity; #3 U.S. dry corn miller, through subsidiary Krause Milling (10% of market); #5 or #6 world grain export trader (combined ADM and Töpfer) (9% of market).
ADM/Töpfer makes enough flour every year to bake 16 billion loaves of bread and enough soybean meal to feed 13 billion chickens—twice as many broilers as the United States produces.
History: In 1878, John W. Daniels began crushing flaxseed to produce linseed oil and in 1902 formed Daniels Linseed Company in Minneapolis. George A. Archer, another experienced flaxseed crusher, joined the company in 1903. In 1923, the company bought Midland Products and adopted the name Archer Daniels Midland (ADM).
In the United States, the use of the soybean had been pushed by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, brother of the Battle Creek, Michigan cereal magnate and a leading exponent of the cultish health-food "wellness" movement. Dwayne Andreas, who was born into a Mennonite family in Decatur, Illinois in 1918, joined his father's R.P. Andreas firm in the mid-1930s. In 1936, the Andreas family changed the name of the firm to the Honeymead Company, and in 1939, Honeymead began to diversify from linseed crushing to soybean crushing. In 1945, when Dwayne Andreas thought he was about to be drafted—by this time he was chief executive officer of Honeymead—he sold 60% of the family's Honeymead to Cargill.
From 1946 through 1952, Dwayne Andreas worked for Cargill, learning how to hedge and speculate in commodities from Julius Hendel, a top European Jewish grain trader who came to the United States to help salvage Cargill from disaster in the 1930s. In 1945, Dwayne Andreas met Hubert Humphrey, who was tied into organized crime. Andreas contributed $1,000 to Humphrey's first senatorial campaign in 1948. Later, writing about this contribution, Humphrey called it a "spectacularly large amount." Humphrey and Andreas became intimate. Humphrey was godfather to Andreas's son. Former U.S. House Speaker Tip O'Neill said of Andreas, "Hubert was his first love." In 1977, Humphrey, then on the Senate Agricultural Committee, wrote legislation to establish government supports for sugar, which saved Andreas from huge losses. In the 1980s, Andreas funded a Hubert Humphrey Room at the Anti-Defamation League's new headquarters at U.N. Plaza in New York City. While Humphrey lived, Andreas and Humphrey took 85 trips together.
In 1974, ADM entered into a price-fixing scheme that overcharged the U.S. government $19 million in sales of soy-fortified food to the Food for Peace program. As one reporter commented, the money was stolen "either from the taxpayers or the starving poor, depending on which devout Mennonite perspective you prefer." ADM was convicted. In 1976, the company pleaded no contest to federal charges that it had systematically short-weighted and misgraded federally subsidized grain that was being shipped abroad.
Andreas's investment in high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) production prospered, when the soft-drink industry bought it. By 1983, HFCS accounted for 75% of sweeteners purchased by Coca-Cola and 50% of Pepsi's sweeteners.
Andreas became deeply involved in grain sales to Russia and was active in the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Trade and Economic Council, eventually becoming USTEC's chairman. In 1984, Andreas met Mikhail Gorbachov for the first time. In 1990, Andreas contributed $1 million to create a Gorbachov Institute in the United States and Russia.
ADM purchased a 50% stake in Alfred C. Töpfer International, one of the most powerful second-tier grain cartel companies. This purchase also works the other way, with the older, Hamburg-based Töpfer Company, with extensive roots in Europe, exercising an influence over ADM. The Töpfer Company has an over 70% equity position in two French firms—Compagnie Européene des Céréales and G. Muller. The remaining shares in these companies are held by the Rothschild Group in France. These two French companies and the Töpfer Company own at least ten large grain elevators in France and Germany. Also, before the Iron Curtain came down, Töpfer controlled 50% of the grain imports into East Germany.
Andreas was always close, as a result of his friendship with Hubert Humphrey, to the organized crime-linked Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith. During the 1980s, Andreas was persuaded by another major grain trader, Burton Joseph, of the Minneapolis-based S.I. Joseph Company, to contribute $1 million to the ADL. Andreas made the payments in amounts of $50,000 to $100,000 per year.
In 1995, the U.S. Justice Department launched an investigation into fraud and anti-competitive price-fixing in ADM's handling and marketing of corn sweeteners and lysine. The latter enhances growth in chickens and hogs, while making meat leaner.
Key personnel and policy: Board of directors: Howard Buffett, vice president of ADM and son of Berkshire Hathaway (men's clothing brand) owner Warren Buffett (at the beginning of the Justice Department's investigation, Howard Buffett resigned from ADM board); Robert Strauss, George Bush's ambassador to Russia, 1991-93, and a long-time friend of Andreas. Strauss is also a member of the board of British intelligence's chief propaganda mouthpiece, the Hollinger Corp.; Brian Mulroney, former prime minister of Canada, and associated with the Hollinger Corp.; several members of the Andreas family, including Dwayne's brother Lowell Andreas, and his son, Michael Andreas, who is also ADM's vice chairman and the heir apparent.


#1 U.S. flour miller (24% of market); #1 U.S. sheep slaughterer (33% of market), through Sipco and Montfort meats; #2 U.S. beef slaughterer (20% of market); #2 U.S. pork slaughterer; #4 U.S. dry corn miller (8% of market);
History: ConAgra was founded in Omaha, Nebraska in 1919 as Consolidated Mills, a grain processor. (The name was changed to ConAgra in 1971.) In 1982, ConAgra bought the Peavey Company. Peavey, along with its Minneapolis confederates, the Pillsbury and Washburn families, dominated the milling of American flour, which came up the Mississippi River or along the railroads from the American Midwest to Minneapolis. This immediately made ConAgra America's largest flour miller. This was followed by a slew of purchases in the meatpacking industry, including Armour (1983), Northern States Beef (1985), E.A. Miller (1987), Montfort (1987), and Swift (1987).
The purchase of Montfort Meats typifies the takeovers in the meat industry. The Colorado-based Montfort Meats was America's third largest meatpacker, and an independent. In 1986, Cargill Meat Company made a bid for Spencer Beef. Montfort Meats took legal action to block the takeover, on the grounds that it would make Cargill too large in the meatpacking industry, and thus it clearly violated U.S. anti-trust laws. Even though a local court and a district court ruled in Montfort's favor, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the takeover. Fearing it was just a matter of time, and that it could not survive on its own, Montfort tendered itself for takeover to the giant ConAgra.
ConAgra also bought Elders, the largest beef producer/processor in Australia and the largest beef and lamb exporter in the world. ConAgra continued its takeover binge: Since the mid-1970s, ConAgra has acquired over 100 companies. It bought the Chung King line of foods; Beatrice Foods, including Butterball Turkeys; Peter Pan peanut butter, and others.
Major brands: Hunt's Tomato Sauce and Ketchup; Wesson Oil; Banquet TV dinners; Armour, Swift, Eckrich, and Hebrew National meats; Healthy Choice foods; Orville Redenbacher popcorn; Peter Pan peanut butter; LaChoy Chinese foods; Swiss Miss cocoa; Reddi-Whip whip cream.
Key personnel and policy: Board of directors: Dr. Ronald Roskens, president of Action International, former president of the University of Nebraska, reportedly dismissed for pedophilia, and George Bush's director of the State Department Agency for International Development; Marjorie Scardino, chief executive of the Economist Newspaper Ltd. and Economist magazine, which is jointly owned by Britain's Rothschild and Lazard Frères banking houses, both close to Britain's royal family; Charles Harper, chairman and chief executive of RJR Nabisco.


#1 U.S. beef slaughterer (26% of market); #1 U.S. pork slaughter (12% of market). IBP, the largest butcher in the world, accounts for 9 billion pounds of meat a year, or about 14% of U.S. total. Japan, which consumes half of all U.S. meat exports, is a major market for IBP.
IBP was bought in 1981 by Armand Hammer's Occidental Petroleum Corp. Occidental sold 49.5% of the company in 1987, and the remaining 50.5% of IBP in 1991. FMR Corp. is the holding company for Fidelity Mutual Funds, the largest family of mutual funds in the United States, with over $300 billion in investments. FMR Corp. is run by Boston Brahmin oligarchical families, and owns 13% of IBP's stock. FMR is also a large owner of raw material cartel companies, including shares of 5% or more in: Homestake Mining, Coeur D'Alene Mines, and Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp., three of the largest gold-mining companies in the United States.
History: Formed in 1960 by A. Anderson and C. Holman, as Iowa Beef Processors; the first plant was in Denison, Iowa. IBP broke with tradition: It built the plant in a rural area where the cattle was raised. In 1967, it took another step: Its Dakota City, Nebraska plant cut the meat and shipped it, pre-cut, in vacuum packs to stores (called boxed beef). IBP reached a marketing agreement with Cactus Feeders, the nation's largest commercial feeder, to supply it with beef cattle. In the early 1990s, it purchased 40 hog-buying stations from Heinhold Hog, Inc. in Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Minnesota.
IBP makes money by driving down the wages of its workforce and the price of beef paid to farmers. IBP tried to ban union wages and the union. In 1965, a strike against this IBP policy became so violent that the governor of Iowa had to intervene to settle it. A 1969-70 strike, provoked by IBP, resulted in one death. A similar pattern prevailed in the 1980s. On Aug. 15, 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported: "In May, the Immigration and Naturalization Service arrested 24 illegal aliens, who worked for an IBP contractor, at the company's Council Bluffs plant: a month earlier, 35 illegals were arrested at an IBP plant in Minnesota."
For the third quarter of 1995, IBP's net income/profit rose to $85.4 million, an increase of 74% from its net income of $49.2 million during the third quarter of 1994. But IBP's quarterly sales, for the third quarter of 1995, were virtually the same as those of the third quarter of 1994, $3.3 billion and $3 billion, respectively. So how did IBP nearly double profits on the same sales volume? By driving down the price of beef paid to the farmer. It is now $60 per hundredweight of beef, when a price of $75 to $80 is needed for cattle ranchers to break even. Cattle ranchers are not selling, because they can't afford to accept the low price.
IBP attempted to get its meat into the New York market by forming ties with the Mafia, which was exposed in trials in the 1980s.
Key personnel and policy: Board of directors: Wendy Graham, wife of the budget-cutting lunatic Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.). From 1988 to 1993, Wendy Gramm was George Bush's chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, during which time derivatives holdings at large U.S. financial institutions exploded from $2.5 billion to over $20 billion. In August of this year, IBP offered free tickets and bus transportation to its employees (paid for by the Gramm campaign), if they would go to the Iowa Republican Party Presidential straw poll and vote for candidate Phil Gramm, whom IBP backs, over local favorite, Kansan Bob Dole. Also on IBP's board is Alec Courtelis, a Florida real estate developer and the nation's largest Arabian horse breeder. Courtelis was National Finance co-chairman of the 1992 Bush-Quayle campaign, and is now Finance Committee head of the Gramm for President campaign and chairman of the Armand Hammer United World College.


#1 world food company; #1 world trader in dry milk powder; #1 world trader of condensed milk; #1 seller of chocolate and confectionary products; #1 world seller of mineral water; #3 U.S. coffee firm.
In 1994, there were 13 countries in which Nestlé had 1 billion Swiss francs or more in sales; the countries (with sales in billions of Swiss francs in parenthesis): U.S. (SF 12.2); France (SF 6.5); Germany (SF 6.1); U.K. (SF 3.3); Italy (SF 3.2); Japan (SF 3.1); Brazil (SF 2.9); Mexico (SF 1.8); Spain (SF 1.8); Australia (SF 1.1); Switzerland (SF 1.1); the Philippines (SF 1.1); Canada (SF 1.0). Nestlé's has 400 manufacturing facilities on 5 continents.
History: In 1866 in Cham, Switzerland, Charles Page founded the Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company. In 1867, in nearby Vevey, Henri Nestlé founded Farine Lactée Henri Nestlé. In 1905, Nestlé and the Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company merged.
In 1922, a banker, Louis Dapples, took over management of the company, and eventually became chairman of Nestlé. Over the next 70-odd years, Nestlé made one takeover after another, especially during the past ten years. It controls the export of powdered milk to the developing sector.
Brand names: Nestlé's chocolate mix and chocolate milk; Nestlé's candy bars, including Crunch, Butterfinger, Kit-Kat, After Eight dinner mints; Peter-Cailler-Kohler Chocolats; Perrier, Vittel, Fuerst Bismarck, Spring, Arrowhead, and other brands of bottled mineral water; Libby fruit juices; Hills Brothers, Zoega, and Dallmayr roasted coffee; Carnation sweetened condensed milk and Carnation breakfast bars; Coffee-Mate creamer; Stouffer's restaurants, frozen foods, and other products; Findus and Surgela frozen products in Europe; Nescafe instant coffee; Taster's Choice coffee; Nestea instant tea; Buitoni spaghetti and Contadina tomato paste, sauce, and Italian food products; Friskies cat food; and Alpo dog food.
Nestlé's also owns Alcon eye products, such as Opti-Free, and 26.3% of L'Oreal, the world's largest shampoo and cosmetics company.
Key personnel and policy: Board of directors: Nestlé chairman Helmut Maucher is also on the board of J.P. Morgan Bank, British intelligence's leading bank in the United States, and Allianz Versicherung of Munich, an insurance firm; Fritz Leutwiller, who was also chairman of Swiss National Bank and, in 1982-84, of the Bank for International Settlements, the central bank of the central banks; Paul Volcker, chairman of U.S. Federal Reserve Board of Governors 1978-85, currently chairman of Blackstone Group, a Wall Street investment firm.


#1 world producer of ice cream; #1 world producer of margarine; one of the top five world exporters of dry milk powder; #1 European tea seller; #2 or #3 world producer of soaps and detergents; one of the top five world crushers of palm oil and palm kernel; one of world's largest producers of olive oil.
History: In 1885, Englishman William Lever and his brother James formed Lever Brothers. It produces Lux, Lifebuoy, Rinso, and Sunlight soaps. In the Netherlands, rival buttermakers Jurgens and Van den Berghs were pioneers in margarine production. In 1927, they created the Margarine Union, a cartel that owned the European market. In 1930, the Margarine Union and Lever Brothers merged, forming Unilever. This paralleled the merger of Royal Dutch Oil Company and Britain's Shell Transport Company at the turn of the century, to form the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company, the world's largest. Both Unilever and Royal Dutch Shell are corporate entities that express the joint interests of the Anglo-Dutch monarchies.
Brand names: Breyers, Good Humor, Klondike, Magnum, Carte D'Or, and Popsicle brands ice cream; Bird's Eye and Iglo frozen foods; Ragú and Chicken Tonight pasta and meal sauces; Lipton Tea and Brooke Bond Tea (leading European tea company); Lipton soups; Continental Cup-a-Soup; Country Crock, Blue Bonnett, Flora, Becel and Rama margarines; Bertoli and La Masia olive oil; Wishbone salad dressing; Boursin and Milkana cheeses; Bon Vivant cookies; Pepsodent, Close-Up, and Mentadent tooth pastes; Dove, Lux, and Lever soaps; Wisk and Surf laundry detergents; Vaseline Intensive Care, Pond's Cold Cream, Elizabeth Arden, Fabergé (Brut, Chloe) and Calvin Klein skin care cosmetics.
Key personnel and policy: Board of directors: Lord Wright of Richmond, GCMG, from 1986-91, permanent undersecretary of state at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and head of the Diplomatic Service, also a director of Barclay's Bank; Sir Derek Birkin, from 1985-91, chairman of London-based RTZ (Rio Tinto Zinc), the world's second largest mining company, in which the Queen of England has a substantial investment; Frits Fentener Van Vlissingen, from 1974 through 1991, member of the Supervisory Board of the giant Rotterdam Bank of the Netherlands; Sir Brian Hayes, former permanent secretary of Britain's Ministry of Agriculture; Viscount Leverhulme, KGTD, grandson of William Lever, largest stockholder in Unilever, and funder and builder of Prince Philip's World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the coordinating arm for British intelligence.


#2 world food company; #1 U.S. food company (10¢ of every $1 Americans spend on branded food items in the United States is for a Philip Morris/Kraft food product); #1 world processed cheese seller; #1 world cream cheese seller; #1 U.S. seller of luncheon meats; #1 U.S. seller of powdered soft drinks; #1 world cigarette producer; #1 U.S. and Japan cigarette producer (44.8% of U.S. market); #2 U.S. beer brewer, through Miller Brewing; #3 world beer brewer; #3 world confectionery business; #3 U.S. breakfast cereal company (Post cereals).
History: In 1847, Philip Morris opened a London tobacco store, and by 1854 he was making his own cigarettes. In 1919, U.S. financier George Whelan purchased the rights to market Philip Morris brands such as Marlboro, Ovals, Players, and Cambridge. Ten years later, Whelan's successor began manufacturing the cigarettes in Richmond, Virginia.
In 1985, Philip Morris bought General Foods, producer of Jello brand gelatin and Post cereals, for $5.75 billion. In 1988, Philip Morris spent $12.9 billion to acquire Kraft Foods.
Brand names: Kraft Products, such as Kraft Mayonnaise and Miracle Whip and Kraft cheese; Velveeta; Philadelphia Cream Cheese; Dairylea; Cool Whip; Post cereals; Entenmann's Cookies; Jello; Kool-Aid, Country Time, Crystal Light and Tang powdered drinks; Maxwell House, Sanka, Maxim, Gevalia, Jacobs, Kaffe Hag, and Carte Noire coffees; Milka and Toberlone confectionery chocolates and candies; Jacobs Suchard, a Swiss maker of chocolate and coffee (Philip Morris bought it in 1990; Jacobs Suchard is one of the ten largest European food companies); Tombstone Pizza; Miller, Miller Lite, Molson, Lowenbrau, Red Dog beers; Oscar Mayer, Louis Rich, Simmenthal and Negroni lunch meats; Lender's Bagels; Budget Gourmet frozen dinners; Shake N' Bake; Stove Top Stuffing; Log Cabin syrup; Good Seasons salad dressing; Marlboro, Lark, Philip Morris, Benson and Hedges, Chesterfield, Virginia Slims, Merit cigarettes.
Key personnel and policy: Board of directors: Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation. The Australian-born Murdoch runs major propaganda organs for the British, including his company's flagship newspapers, the Times and Sunday Times of London; Richard Parsons, president of Time Warner. The publisher of Time magazine and of Warner records, Time Warner is partially owned by the mob Bronfman family of Seagram's Liquor, which family is reputedly a major force in the world's illegal narcotic trade; Stephen Wolf, senior adviser of Lazard Frères investment bank.
Philip Morris is one of the largest corporate sponsors of Prince Philip's WWF. It is one of the largest smugglers of illegal cigarettes, both for sale and as barter for other illegal goods. It has been cited repeatedly in the Italian press as one of the world's largest marijuana dealers.

Subscribe to EIR

   This article appeared as part of a feature in the December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. See Feature Introduction and Table of Contents.

World Food Shortages Crisis Follows
Decades of Imposed Import-Dependency

by John Hoefle and Marcia Merry Baker
The current world food crisis is usually portrayed as a grains shortages crisis. Annual world grains output (grains of all kinds, including wheat, corn, barley, millet, rice, etc.) has stagnated, or declined, to around 1,900 million tons or less for the past five years (see Figure 1), at a time when, based on 1980s population figures, over 3,000 million tons of grains produced annually is required to ensure that dietary needs are met globally. There is something radically wrong when the total of the world's grains harvested stagnates, or drops.

The picture is even worse on a per-capita basis (see Figure 2). For everyone to have decent daily rations, whatever the relative percentages of cereals, animal proteins, and the other food groups that anyone's dietary preferences dictate, there needs to be well over 14 bushels of grains available in the world food chain per person, on average. But millions are without even their daily bread. For millions, there are fewer than 10 bushels of grain per capita in the food chain.

Production is below 1980s level of use

An indication of just how low annual grains output is, is that production is below the average utilization level of the 1980s (see Figure 1). Today's global grains output of about 1,900 million tons a year, means that annual grains output is dropping below the level of yearly global grains utilization (for direct human consumption, livestock feed, seed, and all other uses) which existed for several years in the 1980s (see EIR, Sept. 15, 1995). This means that more and more people don't have the food they need. And whatever stocks of grains were on hand in recent years as carryover from harvest to harvest or reserves for emergencies, have been, relatively speaking, wiped out. Only in exceptional places, such as India, are there, at present, significant reserves.
Today, world grains carryover stocks are at the same absolute levels they were 20 years ago. Stocks have dropped from 460-490 million metric tons in the late 1980s, down to less than 250 million tons projected for year-end 1995—the level of stocks in 1969.
The only reason that there are stocks reported at all is that consumption itself (for livestock feed, cereals consumption, etc.) is declining. This has been apparent for the past few years.
If this grains gap is obvious on the crude scale of world tonnage statistics, it is even more manifest at the local level, where there are millions of undernourished people at points of need around the globe.
Thus, the situation in grains production and shortages is a good marker of the overall food crisis. Dozens of countries, with millions of people, have gone from national self-sufficiency in basic grains, to dependency on imports or donated cereals aid. And now the grain isn't there. Figure 3 shows the decline in annual global food aid in grains from the World Food Program over the past 10 years, from a peak of 15 million tons, down to little more than 7 million tons this year.

Decline in national food self-sufficiency

The decline in national food self-sufficiency for certain food items is shown in Table 1 for 15 selected countries at two points in time, 1963 and 1990. The countries analyzed include the 13 nations specified in National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), prepared under Henry Kissinger in 1974 (see article), plus the former U.S.S.R. and China (see Figure 4). All 15 nations are hereafter called the "targetted" group.

By 1990, there were significant drops in food self-sufficiency over the prior 27-year period. Look first at cereals (Table 1, column one). In 1963, Mexico was 100% self-sufficient in grains output; it was a grains-exporting nation. As of 1990, Mexico was only 79% self-sufficient, i.e., a grains importing nation. The situation is even worse today.

Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, Brazil was about 90% self-sufficient in cereals in 1963, but dropped to 76% self-sufficient in 1990. Colombia remained about the same, staying at only 86-87% self-sufficient. Other nations in Ibero-America (not shown), saw drastic declines in basic grains self-sufficiency. For example, Haiti, in 1970, was close to 95% self-sufficient; but, as of 1990, self-sufficiency had dropped down to 45%.
In Africa, Egypt was 84% self-sufficient in cereals production in 1963, and only 62% self-sufficient in 1990. Ethiopia was over 100% self-sufficient in grains supply in 1963, and dropped down to 81% self-sufficient in 1990. Nigeria remained at 99% self-sufficiency in grains the entire period, but, as will be shown below, grains declined markedly as a component of the daily diet. Other locations in Africa saw drastic declines in grain self-sufficiency. For example, Algeria was 76% self-sufficient in grains in 1970; in 1990, Algeria was only 44% self-sufficient.
On the Asian subcontinent, the cereals self-sufficiency ratios show no declines for India, which went from 96% to 105% over 1963 to 1990, and Pakistan, which stayed at the 93-95% level. India has managed to stockpile as much as 40 million tons of grains as of year-end 1995, and may undertake certain exports. However, Bangladesh has gone from 106% grains self-sufficiency in 1963, down to 87%, and is subject to wide swings from year to year in grains supplies.
In Southeast Asia, wide annual swings in staple grains are also now common. In 1963, Indonesia was 89% self-sufficient in cereals; in 1990, it was 100% self-sufficient. But in several years since then, it has fallen back to rely on imports. Similarly, the Philippines stayed at 80-83% self-sufficiency levels for 1963 and 1990, but in recent years has seen growing dependency because of shortfalls in rice. Thailand, from which the cartel trading companies export many kinds of commodities (corn, livestock feed, meat, processed foods, etc.), was 159% self-sufficient in cereals in 1963, and 131% in 1990.
In Western Asia, Turkey was 113% self-sufficient in grains in 1963, and was still 99% self-sufficient in 1990.
China, throughout the period, was 95-100% self-sufficient in grains, with changes from year to year from being a net importer or exporter.
The Soviet Union, likewise, remained grains import-dependent throughout the 1963-90 period, showing about 87-89% cereals self-sufficiency.

Grains supply is misleading

However, restricting the food crisis to the metric of the grains supply situation is a deliberately misleading practice (see article) which leaves out the essentials of the crisis that has come, over the past 30 years, to extend throughout the entire national agricultural sectors and food supply systems.
Many of these 15 nations also became supply-short and import-dependent, i.e., experienced food self-sufficiency declines, for other basics in their diet. Also shown in Table 1 are pulses (peas, beans), oils (tropical, olive, corn, or other vegetable fats), and milk (including dairy products other than butter).
Note the sharp declines in food self-sufficiency in non-grains diet staples. For example, for pulses, Mexico dropped in self-sufficiency from 104% in 1963 down to 85% in 1990; in oils, from 110% down to 57%; and in milk, from 87% self-sufficiency down to 68%. Brazil became a source of soybean oil exports over this period—for the cartel companies.
Egypt's self-sufficiency in pulses and oils declined. Nigeria, which had been a source of cartel tropical oils exports, experienced a decline as well. In 1963, Nigeria was 207% self-sufficient in oils, and in 1990, only 102% self-sufficient.
On the Indian Subcontinent of Asia, note the declines in Bangladesh's self-sufficiency in pulses and milk between 1963 and 1990.
In Southeast Asia, various patterns are apparent. The Philippines dropped in self-sufficiency from 97% to 47% in pulses, and also declined as a source of tropical oils commodities for cartel export.
China remained relatively the same in self-sufficiency for these staples. And, likewise, Turkey and the former U.S.S.R. did not experience radical changes.
Overall, the increase in food import-dependency during 1963-90, although hailed by United Nations officials and the commodities cartel-backed "experts" and others as reflecting geographical "competitive advantages," "consumers' rights to access world markets," or other such euphemisms, in fact, reflects the impact of successive years of International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionalities and Bretton Woods policies, in which developing nations were denied the means to build up needed agricultural infrastructure (energy, water, transport, handling, storage, processing) to provide for national food supplies.
Over this period, nutrition levels have dropped in most countries, as nations were increasingly forced into food import-dependency. At the same time, cartel commodities companies made a killing in profits off of their domination over both the export-import trade, and domestic food processing and distribution.
The deficits in food supplies shown in the food self-sufficiency ratios in Table 1, are not measured against what people ought to be eating for a decent diet, but rather, merely show what part of their diet, however inadequate, is imported. Look at what this means in the case of Mexico.
Figures 5 and 6 show the drop in cereals self-sufficiency in Mexico from 1970 to 1994, and the drop in per-capita cereals consumption (whether for direct consumption, or via the animal protein cycle) over the same time period. It is estimated that up to one-third of the Mexican population is now suffering some form of malnutrition. In the spring of 1995, the federal government declared 12 official hunger zones in the republic.
        

Start from food use profiles

To provide an overview of the world food crisis, apart from any one food commodity, one country, one crop season or harvest, we here publish a series of figures based on the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization agricultural database. The figures take 14 basic food groups common to most countries' diets, and their tonnages in terms of annual supplies, over the time period approximately 1960-90, in terms of several ratios, including production compared to "supply" (the quantity available from production, plus the net adjustment of stocks, plus the net adjustment for imports and exports), and production and supply per capita.
The 14 food groups are listed in Table 2. For purposes of comparison, we have not listed seafoods.

We begin by looking at the world profile of annual utilization of the total tonnages of these 14 food groups, and major geographic regions. We then proceed to look at the food supply and import-dependency ratios on a per-capita and national basis for two selected groups of nations, as explained below.
Figure 7 shows the total tonnages of annual use of the 14 selected food groups, from 1961 to 1990, in terms of how much tonnage goes for feed (food for livestock), food (direct human consumption, the largest tonnage), "other" uses (ranging from using biomass for fuel, to plastics), processing (intermediate stages of food preparation), seed, and waste.

The increase from less than 3 billion tons of basic food commodities in the food supply to close to 6 billion tons over the roughly 30-year period, comes out to a change per capita of from about 2,050 pounds of food commodities per person in 1963, to about 2,200 pounds per person in 1990. However, on a regional and national scale, the volumes and ratios differ greatly.
The next series of figures (Figures 8 through 15) show the food supply utilization profiles for major geographic regions—the Western Hemisphere, western and eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, and East Asia.








Some of the most striking differences, even at this gross level of aggregation, are noted, taking each of the uses for food commodities in order shown on the graphics.
  • Feed for livestock. North America and Europe show relatively the largest volume of agricultural commodities going into livestock feed. In contrast, very little goes for livestock feed in Africa or in the Indian subcontinent.

  • Food. Africa shows the highest relative share of food going for direct human consumption. This reflects the extensive subsistence production of cassava and various grains, that do not go through even intermediate processing.

  • Other uses. Extensive use of agricultural commodities for non-food or feed uses show up dramatically in the Americas. Beginning in the 1970s, the use of sugar cane and other biomass for alcohol fuel, e.g., "gasohol," was initiated on a large scale in Brazil. In the United States, beginning in the late 1970s and increasingly up to the present, corn has been processed for ethanol.

  • Processed. The regions show differences in the degree of intermediate processing of food commodities, with the least processing being done in Africa and the Middle East.

  • Seed. The necessary volumes of seed for the annual crops cycles are shown for each geographic region.

  • Waste. Relatively the largest volume of food commodities wasted shows up in Africa and in eastern Europe. What this reflects is the absence of protection—storage facilities, pesticides and other chemicals, refrigeration, and transportation. Loss rates to waste add up to 40% in many tropical regions.

Who eats, and who doesn't?

For a closer look at the food supplies crisis, we focused on two groups of countries (see Figure 4) for five points in time from 1963 to 1990. There are the "targetted" nations, the 13 designated in the Kissinger NSSM-200, plus China and the former U.S.S.R. In contrast, there are the "export source" countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, France, South Africa, and Argentina. These latter six nations together are the origin for a large percentage of the total tonnages of food products that the commodities cartels control and use to dominate world trade and food supplies (see article).
Compare Figure 16 with Figure 17, and you see that, per capita, the levels of food production and supply are about the same in the "targetted" nations; but in the "export source" group of nations, production far exceeds supply.
        
Moreover, the level of production and supply in the targetted nations is less than a metric ton per capita per year, whereas in the "export source" nations, there are about 1.75 tons of food supply per capita per year.
Over 1963-90, there is an increase in the per-capita production and supply levels in the targetted countries, from 0.7 metric tons in 1963 up to 0.9 tons in 1990, but the targetted nations group never comes close to even the 1963-67 level of supplies per capita in the "export source" nations.
Furthermore, Figure 18 shows the food production per capita in each of the six "export source" nations. Look at the high tonnages in Australia and Canada, in particular—the Commonwealth nations used as postwar "granary" economies for London-interlocked commodities cartels.

Now look at certain individual nations in the other group, the "targetted" nations, in terms of levels of production relative to supply (Figures 19 to 23). Shown are Mexico, Nigeria, Bangladesh, India, and China. In none of these nations does production or supply come near that of the "export source" nations.
        
        

Diet deteriorates

While Figures 19 to 23 indicate how low the absolute tonnages of food production and supplies are in the targetted nations, the deterioration in the composition of the diet can be seen by looking in more detail at the constituent food groups that make up the diet. Look, for example, at Nigeria.
Figure 24 shows the relative percentages of the different food groups that make up the total annual food utilized in the country, in 1963, and then in 1990. We are looking at production, because it is about equivalent to supply in Nigeria.

The largest component is starchy roots, about 56% of the diet in 1963. In 1990, this has gone up to almost 67% of the diet. Mostly, this is cassava, which, along with a variety of companion foods, is part of West African cuisines. However, the increased use of cassava from 1963 to 1990 reflects not a dietary preference, but rather a forced reliance on the root vegetable as a heavy-bearing crop, on which people can subsist, i.e., it's filling, but not nutritious.
This monoculture reliance is labeled a "success story" by cartel-affiliated groups active in promoting cassava in Nigeria and Zaire, such as, for example, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and the International Food Policy Research Institute.
What is shown as the "other" segment on the Nigeria food charts, is the total of all 12 other food types. In 1990, this included 5.4% vegetables; 3.5% fruits; 2% peas and beans; 1.6% sugar crops; 1% meats, and even lesser amounts of the remaining food groups.
For comparison, look at the shares of different food groups in the U.S. diet in 1967 (Figure 25). This shows supply, not production, because the United States is a cartel "export source" nation. The most striking feature of the U.S. food supply, is the variety and quantity of many different foods.

For further comparison, look at the relative shares of food groups in the food supply in China, in 1963 and in 1990 (Figure 26).

Burden of producing food

These data document the worsening inadequacies in the food supplies of many nations, from the 1960s to the present. But, producing the food supply, however inadequate in amount and make-up, nevertheless involves most of the time and effort of the populations in the "targetted" group of nations.
One measure of the burden of producing the daily diet is the relatively large percentage of workers engaged in agriculture, as opposed to manufacturing, construction, and socially necessary tasks such as education, transport, and other infrastructure. Figure 27 shows agricultural workers as a percentage of the total work force, for five time periods, from 1963 to 1990, for the United States and the two economic groups of the study.

Over 70% of the work force of the "targetted" nations were in the agricultural sector in 1963; and during the subsequent three-decade period of increasing world food import-dependency, and poorer diets, this percentage fell to only about 58%. Moreover, for most countries, this does not reflect greater agricultural productivity gains, but rather a dispossession of farm populations, and their migration into the shanty camps of urban areas.
In the United States, the percentage of the work force in agriculture dropped from 5% in 1963 to under 3% by 1990. In the "export source" nations overall, the percentage of workers in agriculture dropped from 11% in 1963, down to 4.5% by 1990.
In the next installment of this EIR series on food import-dependency and free trade, we will show in detail the lack of necessary ratios of inputs (fertilizers, mechanization, transport, and other infrastructure) that characterizes the agriculture sectors over the past 30 years.