IN THE NEWSROOM
“There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There
is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinion. The business
of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to
fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race,
for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the
scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull our strings, we dance; our talents,
our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are
– Journalist John Swinton, of the New York Times,
to his staff at his retirement dinner.
Sightings from The Catbird Seat
~ o ~
WTC - STRANGER THAN FICTION
... Every news story you are about to review in this comprehensive research
paper is true and easily verifiable. This investigation represents 10 months
of careful study, research, analysis, source verification and logical deduction.
Every event and quote presented here is 100% accurate. There are over 190
detailed footnotes which I encourage, no, urge, readers to explore and verify
Due to the fact that well organized efforts are under way to suppress these
facts, some of these news links are mysteriously disappearing even as we
speak. Fortunately, this information has all been transcribed by many web
users and is has therefore been preserved from the censors....
This is no opinion piece. Rather it is a collection of buried, but
undeniable facts, events, and quotes which, when assembled in one
place, will state their own conclusions.
In putting together this research in a logical and sequential format, great
care was taken to confirm and double confirm every piece of information.
Any and all questionable data which could not be independently verified to
this author’s satisfaction was discarded....
THE DANCING ISRAELIS
Like most Americans, I was gripped by senses of profound shock, horror,
revulsion, sadness, and rage as I watched the horror of September 11, 2001
unfolding live on my television screen. Watching the mass murder of
thousands of innocent people live on television was the most upsetting
experience of my life. How could any person of sound moral character not be
enraged at witnessing this horrific act of barbarism?...
But not all of the eye-witnesses to the 9-11 slaughter were so saddened. On
September 11, five Israeli army veterans were arrested by the FBI after
several witnesses saw them "dancing", "high-fiving", and "celebrating" as
they took pictures of the World Trade Center disaster from across the river
in New Jersey. Steven Gordon was the lawyer who volunteered to represent
the five Israelis. He was asked by a Hebrew newspaper why the five men
were being detained by the FBI. Here’s what Gordon told Yediot America:
"On the day of the disaster, three of the five boys went up on the roof of
the building where the company office is located," said Gordon. "I'm not sure
if they saw the twin towers collapse, but, in any event, they photographed
the ruins right afterwards. One of the neighbors who saw them called the
police and claimed they were posing, dancing and laughing, against the
background of the burning towers….
"Anyhow, the three left the roof, took an Urban truck, and drove to a
parking lot, located about a five-minute drive from the offices. They parked,
stood on the roof of the truck to get a better view of the destroyed towers
and took photographs. A woman who was in the building above the lot
testified that she saw them smiling and exchanging high-fives. She and
another neighbor called the police and reported on Middle-Eastern looking
people dancing on the truck. They copied and reported the license plates.
When the photos were developed, they revealed that the dancing Israelis
were smiling in the foreground of the New York massacre. According to
ABC’s 20/20 attempted whitewash of the incident, in addition to their
outrageous and highly suspicious behavior, the five also had in their
possession the following items; box-cutters, European passports, and $4700
cash hidden in a sock. Why were these Israeli agents so happy about the
horrible massacre that was unfolding right before their very eyes? What evil
spirit could possess people who are supposed to be America's "allies", and
who receive billions of dollars in financial and military aid from US taxpayers
each year , to publicly rejoice as innocent people (including many American
jews) were burning to death and jumping out of 110 story buildings? Could it
be that these happy Israeli army veterans were in some way linked to this
monstrous attack? That’s what officials close to the investigation initially
told The Bergen Record newspaper of New Jersey.
As incredible, as ridiculous, and as "paranoid" as that belief may appear to
you at this point, the fact is that certain elements within the Israeli
government, and Zionist movement in general, have a long history of
attacking the USA and framing Arabs in order to gain support from the US.
Before we begin to piece together what really transpired on 9-11, it is
absolutely critical that we first review some historical precedents regarding
Israel's and International Zionism's treacherous history of manipulating
America (and other nations) for their own selfish purposes. Without a basic
understanding of this history, it would be impossible to understand the truth
as it is today. So put aside your preconceived notions, your psychological
defense mechanisms, and your prejudices, and step into my time machine for
a journey down the memory hole....
ZIONIST POWER STRUCTURE IN AMERICA
Now that we have established the ruthless and criminal nature of radical
Zionism, one more lesson needs to be understood before we return to the
five dancing Israelis of 9-11 and other related stories. Even the Zionists
themselves have never denied that they have long exerted great influence in
America. But what we must understand is that the Zionists do not merely
influence United States policy....they dominate it! It is this domination that
enables them to pull off monstrous crimes and then conceal them from the
The observation that Zionists dominate the American media, government,
academia, and Hollywood has been made by many prominent Americans and is
easily verifiable by public information.
Henry Ford said this:
"If after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered to
the Jewish control, then you speedily hear of "scandals" and "investigations"
and "impeachments" for the removal of the disobedient. Usually a man with a
"past" proves the most obedient instrument, but even a good man can often
be tangled up in campaign practices that compromise him. It has been
commonly known that Jewish manipulation of American election campaigns
have been so skillfully handled, that no matter which candidate was elected,
there was ready made a sufficient amount of evidence to discredit him in
case his Jewish masters needed to discredit him."
Charles Lindbergh said this:
"Their greatest danger to this country lies in the Jewish ownership and
influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government."
Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under
Ronald Reagan said this:
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them
[the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The
Israelis know what is going on all the time. If the American people
understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would
rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
While a guest on ABC's Face the Nation, William Fulbright - US Senator and
Chairman of the US Foreign Relations committee - said this before a national
"Israel controls the United States Senate. We should be more concerned
about the United States' interests."
Nationally syndicated columnist and former presidential candidate Patrick
"The United States Congress is Israeli occupied territory."
And US religious leader Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon once had
the following exchange, which was caught on tape:
GRAHAM: "The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or
this country's going down the drain".
NIXON: "You believe that?"
GRAHAM: "Yes, sir."
NIXON: "Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I do believe it"
But enough of quoting others. Let's look at the facts of Zionist control.
FACT: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, UPN, The Washington Post, The New York
Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Daily News, Time Magazine,
Newsweek, People Magazine, US News and World Report and countless other
media and Hollywood companies all have either a Zionist CEO, a Zionist News
Chief, or are owned by a media conglomerate which has a Zionist CEO. Have
you ever noticed how Hollywood movies always seem to portray Germans and
Arabs as a bigoted fanatics or as terrorists? Now you know why!
FACT: AIPAC, the Israeli lobbying organization, is the most feared lobby in
Washington DC. By their own admission, they are capable of unseating
Congressmen and Senators that do not carry out their requests. The
majority of Congressmen from both political parties receive large donations
from AIPAC. Writing for the Nation Magazine, journalist Michael Massing
"AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in
Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds of
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle." Newspapers like the New
York Times fear the Jewish lobby organizations as well. "It's very
intimidating," said a correspondent at another large daily. "The pressure
from these groups is relentless." (emphasis added)
FACT: The Pentagon is under the control of a hard core Zionist named
Richard Perle. The civilian Defense Policy Board actually wields more control
over the military establishment than the Defense Secretary or the generals
and admirals. There are a number of other Zionists who serve on the board
(Kissinger, Cohen, Schlessinger) as well as non-jewish members who have
always supported Israel and the expansion of the "War on Terror". The
notoriously belligerent Perle, nicknamed the "The Prince of Darkness", is
Chairman of the Board.
With Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Zionist Paul Wolfowitz
as Undersecretary of Defense, and Zionist award winner Douglass Feith as
Undersecretary of Defense Policy, the Zionist Pentagon gang controls 3 of
the top 4 civilian leadership positions of America’s armed forces. Careerist
scoundrels like Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are either under their
influence or unwilling to oppose their drive for WW III. The Perle-Wolfowitz-Feith gang represent a fanatical and warmongering "government-within-a-government". In league with these Zionist Pentagon conspirators are
jewish Zionist and potential 2004 Presidential candidate, Senator Joseph
Lieberman (D-CT) and his Gentile partner in crime Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
An Israeli journalist named Ari Shavit, lamenting the harsh treatments that
his government dishes out to the Palestinians, made the following observation
in Ha'aretz, a leading Israeli journal:
" We believe with absolute certitude that now, with the White House and
Senate in our hands along with the Pentagon and the New York Times,
the lives [of Arabs] do not count as much as our own. Their blood does not
count as much as our blood. We believe with absolute certitude that now,
when we have AIPAC [the Israel lobby] and [Edgar] Bronfman and the Anti-Defamation League, , we truly have the right to tell 400,000 people that in
eight hours they must flee from their homes. And that we have the right to
rain bombs on their villages and towns and populated areas. That we have the
right to kill without any guilt." (emphasis added)
And this only scratches the surface of Zionist power! With such awesome
power to control and cover up events, is it any wonder why so many of
America's journalists and politicians are afraid to even talk about this issue?
Is it any wonder why former President Bill Clinton would grovel before a
jewish audience and say something as ridiculous as the following statement:
"The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across
the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and
fight and die."
I could go on and on at much greater length about this subject, but I want to
get back to the dancing Israelis. Have I made my point yet?...
THE SEPTEMBER 11 DANCE PARTY
Let us review what we have learned. We have clearly established that
Zionists played a key role in steering the US into two World Wars. We have
clearly established that Zionists do not care if Americans (or others) are
killed to further their goals. We have clearly established that Zionists have
a record of attacking Americans in order to frame Arabs. We have
established that the Zionists are capable of acts of unspeakable brutality
and genocide. We have established that US politicians fear the Zionist Mafia
and defy them at their own peril. We have learned that warnings of a suicidal
hijacking plot were issued to several people. And most importantly of all, we
have clearly established that the Zionists have the capacity to make these
amazing stories suddenly disappear from their controlled news media.
Having established these precedents, we can now easily deduce that the
reason why those five dancing Israeli agents who celebrated the 9-11 attacks
were so happy is because they knew that Americans would now become
unconditional supporters of their "Israeli ally" and fanatical haters of
Muslims and Arabs.
On the day of the attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations.
His quick reply was "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate
immediate sympathy (for Israel)"
The five Israelis made such a spectacle that everyone who saw them felt
compelled to call the police. According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van
belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the first words
out of the driver's (Sivan Kurzberg) lying mouth were: "We are Israelis.
We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The
Palestinians are your problem."
The police and FBI field agents became really suspicious when they found
box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700
cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen
Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they
reacted as if they had smelled explosives.
From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis
worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems.
An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the Bergen Record
that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were all joking
about the attacks. The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was
in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me."
A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner,
Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country. He was in such a
hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were
left with their furniture stuck in storage facilities. The five Israeli army
veterans (Mossad) were held in custody for several months before being
quietly released. Some of the movers had been kept in solitary confinement
for 40 days.
Immediately following the attacks, the Zionist controlled media was filled
with stories linking the attacks to Bin Laden. TV talking-heads and scribblers
of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the
most outrageous propaganda imaginable. We were told that the reason Bin
Laden attacked the USA was because he hates our "freedom" and
"democracy". The Muslims were "medieval" and they wanted to destroy us
because of our wealth.
But Bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and suggested that
Zionists orchestrated the 9-11 attacks:
"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States
nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government
within a government within the United States. The United States should
try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the
people who want to make the present century a century of conflict
between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked
as to who carried out the attacks....The American system is totally in
control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United
To date, the only shred of "evidence" to be uncovered against Bin Laden was
a highly suspicious, barely audible amateur video, that the Zionist dominated
Pentagon just happened to find "lying around" in Afghanistan. Though there
is no evidence, be it hard or circumstantial, to link the Al Qaeda "terrorist
network" to these acts of terror; there is in fact a mountain of evidence,
both hard and circumstantial, which suggests that the Zionist Mafia has
been very busy framing Arabs for terror plots against America....
~ ~ ~
- View the full report (with footnotes and photographs) at...
January 22, 2008
Study: False statements
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that
President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false
statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years
following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated
campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led
the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public
Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the
study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world
community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.
"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence
agencies around the world," Stanzel said.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in
speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration
officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or
had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass
destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis
and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff
members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration
led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it
methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq
on March 19, 2003."
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during
the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State
Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House
press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only
to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and
10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.
The center said the study was based on a database created with public
statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from
more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.
The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands
of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage
creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.
"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since
acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too
deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush
administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.
On the Net:
Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/
* * * * *
I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth they can be
depended upon to meet any national crisis.
The great point is to bring them the real facts.
-- Abraham Lincoln
* * * * *
CIA Media Manipulation
By Mary Louise, Prison Planet
The CIA's secret activities, covert missions, and connections of control are
all done under the pretense and protection of national security with no
accountability whatsoever, at least in their minds. Considering the public is
held accountable for everything we think, say, and do there is something
seriously wrong with this picture. The CIA is the President's secret army,
who have been and continue to be conveniently above the law with unlimited
power and authority, to conduct a reign of terror around the globe.
The "old boy network" of socializing, talking shop, and tapping each other
for favors outside the halls of government made it inevitable that the CIA
and Corporate America would become allies, thus the systematic infiltration
and takeover of the media....
Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety
of other large corporations including banks, investment companies, oil
companies, health care, pharmaceutical, and technology companies. Until the
1980's, media systems were generally domestically owned, regulated, and
national in scope.
However, pressure from the IMF, World Bank, and US government to
deregulate and privatize, the media, communication, and new technology
resulted in a global commercial media system dominated by a small number of
super-powerful transnational media corporations (mostly US based), working
to advance the cause of global markets and the CIA agenda.
The first tier of the nine giant firms that dominate the world are Time
Warner/AOL, Disney/ABC, Bertelsmann, Viacom/CBS, Rupert Murdoch's
News Corporation/Fox, General Electric/NBC, Sony, Universal/Seagram,
Tele-Communications, Inc. or TCI and AT&T.
This is just the head of the octopus which has its second and third tier
tentacles working together in unison or feigned division. This would include
The Washington Post/Newsweek, The New York Times/Weekly Standard,
Tribune Co., US News, Gannett/USA Today, Dow Jones/Wall Street
Journal, Washington Times, Knight-Ridder, etcetera.
A good site to visit for more information is Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting, a public interest media watchdog group, at
www.fair.org/index.html, www.fair.org/mediafiles/index.html and
Media propaganda tactics include blackouts, misdirections, expert opinions to
echo the Establishment line, smears, defining popular opinions, mass
entertainment distractions, and Hobson's Choice (the media presents the so-called conservative and liberal positions)....
For more, GO TO > > > Songs of the Mockingbird
November 20, 2007
BUSH/CHENEY MISLED PUBLIC
ABOUT CIA IDENTITY LEAK
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public
about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news
conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie
"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to
a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false
information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the
administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice
president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."
Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.
The excerpt, posted on the Web site of publisher PublicAffairs, renews
questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and
Cheney knew about the leak. For years, it was McClellan's job to field — and
often duck — those types of questions.
Now that he's spurring them, answers are equally hard to come by.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what
McClellan meant in the excerpt. "The president has not and would not ask his
spokespeople to pass on false information," she said.
Plame issued a statement saying the opposite.
"I am outraged to learn that former White House Press Secretary Scott
McClellan confirms that he was sent out to lie to the press corps," Plame
said. "Even more shocking, McClellan confirms that not only Karl Rove and
Scooter Libby told him to lie but Vice President Cheney, presidential Chief
of Staff Andrew Card and President Bush also ordered McClellan to issue
his misleading statement."
McClellan turned down interview requests Tuesday.
Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters. Plame and
her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the leak was
retribution for his public criticism of the Iraq war. The accusation dogged
the administration and made Plame a cause celebre among many Democrats...
"Just when you think the credibility of this White House can't get any lower,
another shoe drops," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "If the Bush
administration won't even tell the truth to its official spokesman, how can
the American people expect to be told the truth either?"
In the fall of 2003, after authorities began investigating the leak, McClellan
told reporters that he'd personally spoken to Rove, who was Bush's top
political adviser, and Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff.
"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House
team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you
and say that they were not involved," McClellan said at the time.
Both men, however, were involved. Rove was one of the original sources for
the newspaper column that identified Plame. Libby also spoke to reporters
about the CIA officer and was convicted of lying about those discussions. He
is the only person to be charged in the case.
Since that news conference, however, the official White House stance has
shifted and it has been difficult to get a clear picture of what happened
behind closed doors around the time of the leak.
McClellan's flat denials gave way to a steady drumbeat of "no comment." And
Bush's original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak became a promise to
fire anyone who "committed a crime."
In a CNN interview earlier this year, McClellan made no suggestion that Bush
knew either Libby or Rove was involved in the leak. McClellan said his
statements to reporters were what he and the president "believed to be
true at the time based on assurances that we were both given."
Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's
30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were
involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing
investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.
From ...and the truth shall set you free, by David Icke:
The underlying theme of all you have read is the manipulation of the human
You cannot control billions of people with tanks in the streets and soldiers at
the door. You can only do it by divide and rule – and by programming the
mass consciousness (public opinion) into believing that what you want to do is
a good idea or the only option.
This is crucial to both understanding how the manipulation works and to
thinking on a more streetwise vibration which will make it far more difficult
for us to be misled....
All aspects of society are being used to promote this mental coup d’état.
The ‘education’ system is not there to inform children and young people, it is
there to indoctrinate them; the same with the media and advertising. The
tax exempt foundations coordinate the Elite’s ‘education’ policy in the
United States schools and universities, and in the United Kingdom this is
done, in part, by a secret clique known as the All Souls Group....
Such education policies are designed to turn out clones of the system and
world government supporters, although the overwhelming majority of people
in the teaching profession will not realise this....
I included in The Robots’ Rebellion an extract from a document found,
apparently by accident, in 1986 called Silent Weapons For A Quiet War. . . .
It is a wonderful explanation of the technique of mass brainwashing. The
version I have was found inside an IBM photocopier bought at a second hand
sale in America and it describes a policy of mass mind control.
This lengthy and detailed document was dated 1979, but it outlines a policy
that has been implemented since the 1950s. The document says that: “The
quiet war was ... declared by the international elite at a meeting held in
The Bilderberg Group first met in 1954. It is likely that the methods laid
out in the document will be inspired by the Travistock Institute of Human
Relations in London and its interconnecting offshoots. Here is the flavour of
“Experience has proven that the simplest method of securing a silent weapon
and gaining control of the public is to keep them undisciplined and ignorant of
basic systems principles on the one hand, while keeping them confused,
disorganised, and distracted with matters of no real importance on the other
This is achieved by:
1. Disengaging their minds; sabotaging their mental activities; providing a
low-quality programme of public education in mathematics, systems design
and economics, and discouraging technical creativity.
2. Engaging their emotions, increasing their self indulgence and their
indulgence in emotional and physical activities by:
a) unrelenting emotional affrontations and attacks (mental and emotional
rape) by way of a constant barrage of sex, violence, and wars in the media –
especially the TV and the newspapers.
b) giving them what they desire – in excess – “junk food for thought” – and
depriving them of what they really need.
c) rewriting history and law and subjecting the public to the deviant creation,
thus being able to shift their thinking from personal needs to highly
fabricated outside priorities.
These preclude their interest in, and discovery of, the silent weapon of
social automation technology. The general rule is that there is profit in
confusion; the more confusion, the more profit. Therefore, the best
approach is to create problems and then offer solutions.
Media: Keep the adult public attention diverted away from the real social
issues, and captivated by matters of no real importance.
Schools: Keep the young public ignorant of real mathematics, real economics,
real law, and real history.
Entertainment: Keep the public entertainment below a sixth grade level.
Work: Keep the public busy, busy, busy, with no time to think; back on the
farm with the other animals.” ...
Once negative events and propaganda have been projected at public opinion,
out go the opinion-polling organisations with their clipboards. The people who
ask the questions on the street don’t know what they are involved in. They
are just asking the questions they are told and paid to ask.
But opinion polls are not there to measure public opinion so the people can
be given what they desire. They are there to direct public opinion, often
using loaded questions to attract the desired reply. Tell people that 80% of
the population believe something and those of the sheep – baa, baa –
mentality will quickly conform and believe the same. Eighty percent of the
people cannot be wrong, can they? Oh, yes they can, if they have given their
The other role of opinion polls is to check if the propaganda against a target
group is working. Once the opinion polls say that a sufficient majority now
believe the target group is a problem and “something must be done”, the
legislation (the solution) is taken out of the file and put before Parliament....
Organizations like Travistock Institute of Human Relations (and their
brothers and sisters in the United States such as the Stanford Research
Institute, and the Rand Corporation) research into how people will react,
individually and collectively, to events, changes, and “buzz words”....
Many of the so called ‘spontaneous’ trends that are taken on by the young
are introduced by these and other organisations and then hyped into a
frenzy by advertising and the controlled media. People talk about the “latest
craze” and very few stop to ask, “Where did this start and who was behind
The ‘Flower Power’ period of the 1960s was hijacked and directed by this
same mind manipulating force. The CIA and British Intelligence were
experimenting with the effects of the drug LSD in the 1950s, before it was
unleashed on the market and destroyed any possibility of substantial positive
change emerging from that time. In 1953, the CIA commandeered the entire
supply of LSD from the Swiss manufacturers, Sandoz (which was owned by
S.G. Warburg of London). Later they did the same with Eli Lilly when it
began to produce LSD in the United States.
People were so doped and duped that they thought LSD was a weapon of
‘freedom’. Some still do....
THE ‘FREE’ PRESS
None of this mind manipulation could happen without the media. Again, only a
few people in the media know they are playing a key role in programming the
human mind to walk the road to a global tyranny. The overwhelming majority
of journalists have no idea how they are being used....
I believe the two least knowledgeable and streetwise professions – in general
– are journalism and politics. As I suggested earlier, they are two aspects of
the same illusion. The politicians act as if they rule the world and the media
report events as if politicians are the global decision makers. Thus, the real
controllers can stay in the shadows, unreported and unidentified.
There are exceptions when you meet a very bright journalist who can see
behind the facades. They know they are imprisoned within a media structure
which severely limits what they can say and do. They take every opportunity
to get across as much information as they can....
If only that were true of the rest. Most journalists on local and regional
papers and local radio are either time-servers, who are programmed to turn
out the same old establishment line without question while thinking their
years in the profession make them streetwise, or they are youngsters fresh
out of university who have no experience of the world and the manipulation
that goes on....
At the national and international level, the number of journalists knowingly
manipulating the human mind is far greater than the local and regional media,
but it is still a relative few....
I worked at the BBC Television national newsroom for years and everyone
around me appeared to be extremely genuine. Most of them were very nice
people who loved their children and would not wish to leave them to face a
centralised global dictatorship. But every day they turn out stories which
feed their millions of viewers the line the Elite want them to see and hear....
Most of the time, the background information and explanation of that event
will come from official sources. Watch a television news bulletin today if you
can, and see where the words the reporter is speaking is coming from:
official sources. So without even manipulating a single journalist, your
engineered event, be it a “terrorist bomb” or “economic problem”, is both
reported and explained in the way you want.
The coverage of the horrific bombing in Oklahoma City in April 1995 was yet
another example of puppet-strings journalism. Whatever official
statements were issued, the media jumped on them immediately and
accepted them as fact, without question.
I listened to the BBC’s Radio Five at that time and they introduced a lady
from an organisation I had never heard of in America. There was not one
question about what her organisation represented, who funded it, or what its
background was. The interviewer just fed her questions and allowed her,
unchallenged, to give her ‘expert’ opinion on the people she believed had
carried out the attack.
In BBC Television’s review of 1995, the so called “heavyweight” news
presenter, John Humphreys, parroted the government line on Oklahoma and
named McVeigh and the militias as the “enemy within” even before there had
been a trial! And they still call themselves ‘journalists’.
The media is being conned day by day and it then cons its audience. Ask 99%
of journalists about the Bilderberg Group (Bil), the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), the Trilaterial Commission (TC), and the Elite in general,
and they will look at you in bewilderment. The won’t even have heard of
them, let alone know what their role is.
But there are some journalists in strategic positions who do know and
support what those organisations are doing. The media is such a vehicle for
the coup d’état that if it ever got into the hands of the Elite, the potential
would be limitless. But we don’t have to worry because, as we are told so
often, we have an “independent media”.
Ummm. Independent of what and whom?
In the Aug/Sept 1993 edition of the Netherland’s based magazine, Exposure,
details were published of the controlling boards of the three television
networks in the United States, NBC, CBS and ABC. These networks are
supposed to be in ‘competition’ and it is this very ‘competition’ that is part of
the ‘independence’ which ensures we enjoy unbiased news. That’s the theory,
The Exposure research came from the work of the American New World
Order investigator, Eustace Mullins....
The following is provable fact:
NBC is a subsidiary of RCA, a media conglomerate ... Among the NBC
directors named in the Mullins article were: John Brademas (CFR, TC, Bil), a
director of the Rockefeller Foundation; Peter G. Peterson (CFR), a former
head of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Rothschild), and a former Secretary of
Commerce; Robert Cizik, chairman of RCA and of First City Bancorp, which
was identified in Congressional testimony as a Rothschild bank; Thomas O.
Paine, president of Northrup Co. (the big defense contractor) and director
of the (Elite-controlled) Institute of Strategic Studies in London; Donald
Smiley, a director of two Morgan Companies, Metropolitan Life and US
Steel; Thorton Bradshaw, chairman of RCA, director of the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund, Atlantic Richfield Oil, and the Aspen Institute of
Humanistic Studies (both of the latter headed by ‘environmentalist’ and
elite Bilderberger, Robert O. Anderson). Clearly the NBC board has
considerable Rockefeller-Rothschild-Morgan influence.
ABC had on its board of directors: Ray Adam, director of J.P. Morgan,
Metropolitan Life (Morgan), and Morgan Guaranty Trust; Frank Cary,
chairman of IBM, and director of J.P. Morgan and the Morgan Guaranty
Trust; Donald C. Cook (CFR, Bil), general partner of Lazard Freres banking
house; John T. Connor (CFR) of the Kuhn, Loeb (Rothschild) law firm,
Gravath, Swaine and Moore, former Secretary of the Navy, US
Secretary of Commerce, director of the Chase Manhattan Bank
(Rockefeller/Rothschild), General Motors, and chairman of the J. Henry
Schroder Bank and Schroders Inc, of London (which played a part in the
funding of Hitler); Thomas M. Macioce, director of Manufacturers Hanover
Trust (Rothchild); George Jenkins, chairman of Metropolitan Life (Morgan)
and Citibank (which has many Rothschild connections); Martin J. Schwab,
director of Manufacturers Hanover (Rothschild); Alan Greenspan (CFR, TC,
Bil), chairman of the Federal Reserve, director of J.P. Morgan, Morgan
Guaranty Trust, Hoover Institution, Time magazine, and General Foods;
Ulric Haynes, Jr. director of the Ford Foundation and Marine Midland
Bank (owned by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank).
Again, we see the same Rockefeller-Rothschild-Morgan lineup on the board
of the ABC network which, we are told, is independent of NBC. The ABC
company was taken over by Cities Communications, whose most prominent
director is Robert Roosa (CFR, Bil), senior partner of Brown Brothers
Harriman, which has close ties with the Bank of England. Roosa and David
Rockefeller are credited with selecting Paul Volcker to chair the Federal
Which brings us to CBS, the third of the ‘independent’ networks. Its
financial expansion was supervised for a long time by Brown Brothers
Harriman and its senior partner, Prescott Bush who was a CBS director.
CBS banks through the Morgan Guaranty Trust and reports of CBS
connections with the CIA and British Intelligence are legion among New
World Order researchers. Some know it as the Conspiracy Brainwashing
System. The CBS board included: William S. Paley (Committee of 300), the
chairman (for whom Prescott Bush personally organised the money to buy
the company); Harold Brown (CFR), executive director of the Trilateral
Commission, and former Secretary of the Air Force and Defense; Roswell
Gilpatric (CFR, Bil), from the Kuhn, Loeb (Rothschild) law firm, Cravath,
Swaine, and Moore, and former director of the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York; Henry B. Schnacht, director of the Chase Manhattan Bank
(Rockefeller/Rothschild), the Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings
Institution, and Committee for Economic Development; Michel C. Bergerac,
chairman of Revlon, and director of Manufacturers Hanover Bank
(Rothschild); James D. Wolfensohn (CFR, TC, Bil), former head of J. Henry
Schroder Bank, who has close links with the Rothschilds and the
Rockefellers, (in 1995, Bill Clinton successfully nominated him to head the
World Bank); Franklin A. Thomas (CFR), head of the Ford Foundation;
Newton D. Minow (CFR), director of the Rand Corporation and, among many
others, the Ditchley Foundation, which is closely linked with the Tavistock
Institute in London and the Bilderberg Group.
People connected with research into how the public mind reacts to events
and information are on the board of a United States television network?
Again with CBS, we are looking at the same names at the helm, and all three
networks are closely interlocked with the Council on Foreign Relations and
the Trilateral Commission. How can it possibly be claimed that the three
television networks in America, through which the overwhelming majority of
Americans get their news, are independent?...
Vast numbers of people think and act like a tabloid newspaper. They have
allowed themselves to become tabloid thinkers with tabloid minds. We now
have tabloid radio and tabloid television, too, which follows from the success
of the tabloid newspapers. They all want it short, incredibly superficial, and
with each item full of either mockery, condemnation, instant judgements, the
official line, and/or defence of the status quo. Oh yes, and if you can get
lots of tits and bums in there at every opportunity, so much the better,
because women are only here to lust after....
Those thought patterns in the collective mind created the reality we call the
media. Tabloid newspapers reflect, and program, the thoughts of great
tracts of humanity in an ever-downward spiral. The more our thoughts are
programmed, the more open we become to even more severe programming.
The media won’t change until the collective mind changes and that will result
only from changes in individual thinking....
When we change, it will change....
December 1, 2005
Rupert Murdoch Owns Your Soul --
The Evil Empire Buys MySpace
Pacific News Service
Youth Commentary by Nick Datesman, New America Media, Dec 01, 2005Editor's Note: A young man says the publishing magnate's acquisition of
MySpace.com, a popular social networking site, is just plain scary.
- - -
OAKLAND – If you've ever watched television than you've probably watched
something owned by media kingpin Rupert Murdoch. Why? Because Murdoch
owns all kinds of American media.
Those stupid reality shows you watch? Murdoch owns them. The news you
watch every morning? It could be owned by Murdoch and may be edited to
fit right-wing Christian views. Murdoch also owns 175 newspapers and 35
American television stations. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. His
empire also includes satellite television and magazine and book publishing
that reach from the United States to the United Kingdom, Australia and
But his most recent acquisition might be the scariest.
Murdoch just paid $580 million to buy something huge. The social networking
Web site MySpace -- "a place for friends" -- is now owned by Murdoch....
Why would Murdoch want to own MySpace? Well, after that $580 mill
purchase he now owns easily accessible lists of millions of people's
personal information. He now knows where you live, who your friends are,
what your favorite movie, color and television show is....
For more, GO TO > > > Tracking the Murdoch Flock
January 28, 2006
On-air criticism lands KHON’s
Moore in hot water
The station’s new ownership disputes charges of lost quality
By Erika Engle. Honolulu Star-Bulletin
The new owners of KHON are not happy with their top-rated news anchor.
At issue are remarks by Joe Moore at the end of the 6 o'clock news
Thursday evening, reprinted in yesterday's Star-Bulletin and repeated by
Moore yesterday during the also top-rated "Perry and Price Show" on
KSSK-FM 92.3/AM 590.
"What was said last night was not the truth," said Sandy Benton, chief
operating officer for Montecito Broadcast Group LLC, which has changed
its name from SJL Acquisition LLC. "I need to address it with Joe."
Moore had said Montecito "is a virtual company with no office building."
Benton said there is a home office. "Of course there is. It's in Montecito
(Calif.)," she said.
Montecito's founder, president and chief executive officer, George Lilly,
lives in Montecito. He could not be reached for comment.
Regarding the 35 job cuts the company has announced for KHON, Moore
said, "A small percentage of people will be replaced by automation. The rest
will severely reduce our ability to serve the community in the manner in
which you, and we, have become accustomed."
Benton countered, "We have every intention of serving the community to the
same degree it has been served in the past. If somebody had asked, we
would have told them that. In fact, we did tell them that."
Asked if the commitment could be maintained with one-third less staff, she
said, "I think you continue to forget that a good percentage of (the job cuts)
will be automation."...
Benton said she is aware that Moore has a track record of being outspoken.
"I don't mind that he's outspoken, but I don't want to see inaccuracy flying
out of here like that. I don't know if our airwaves is the place to be
outspoken," she said.
Moore has four years remaining on his contract.
Wrapping up the 10 o'clock news Thursday night, Moore thanked the 6 p.m.
viewers who had communicated support to the KHON newsroom during the
Emmis Communications Corp., which announced last year it was selling KHON
and three mainland television stations to Montecito, completed the sale of
Emmis still owns and operates KGMB in Honolulu, WVUE in New Orleans and
WKCF in Orlando, Fla., stations for which it is seeking a buyer.
May 6, 2003
TV Not Concerned by Cluster Bombs, DU:
"That's just the way life is in Iraq"
From Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media have been quick to declare the U.S. war against Iraq a success, but
in-depth investigative reporting about the war's likely health and
environmental consequences has been scarce. Two important issues getting
shortchanged in the press are the U.S.'s controversial use of cluster bombs
and depleted uranium weapons.
According to a May 5 search of the Nexis database, there have been no
in-depth reports about cluster bombs on ABC, CBS or NBC's nightly news
programs since the start of the war. There have been, however, a few
passing mentions of cluster bombs-- enough so that viewers may be aware of
their existence. Not so with depleted uranium.
Since the beginning of the year, the words "depleted uranium" have not been
uttered once on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News or NBC Nightly
News, according to Nexis.
Depleted uranium is a dense metal used in various U.S. and British munitions
as ballast and to cut through tank armor. The U.S. military insists it is not a
major health threat, but many link it to Gulf War Syndrome and to increased
cancers and birth defects in Iraq. As explained in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer (11/12/02)-- one of the few mainstream outlets to
seriously investigate the issue-- DU is radioactive and remains so for billions
of years. What's more, when a DU weapon hits its target,
"an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust" is created "that can be spread by
the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants
and animals, becoming part of the food chain." According to the London
newspaper the Guardian (4/25/03), it's unclear exactly how much DU was
used in the most recent Iraq war, but some experts estimate 1,000 to 2,000
tons-- roughly three to six times the amount of DU dropped in the 1991 Gulf
Cluster bombs are another widely criticized weapon favored by the U.S. As a
recent Time magazine article (5/12/03) explained, cluster bombs "split in
midair and rain as many as hundreds of grenade-like bomblets," some of
which "remain, like leftover land mines, as a deadly postwar risk to civilians."
According to Human Rights Watch (3/03), a minimum of 14 to 16 percent of
cluster bomblets become "de facto antipersonnel landmines"; the group has
called for "a global moratorium" on their use. Amnesty International has
called the U.S.'s use of cluster bombs in civilian areas of Iraq "a grave
violation of international humanitarian law" (4/2/03).
When cluster bombs have come up on the major network newscasts, little
background information has been provided. ABC's World News Tonight
reported (4/1/03) Iraqi officials' claim that nine children had been killed by
cluster bombs, but did not elaborate.
In another report (World News Tonight Saturday, 4/19/03), anchor Terry
Moran introduced a segment by saying, "Four soldiers were hurt today when
a little Iraqi girl handed them part of a cluster bomb," adding, bizarrely,
"That's just the way life is in Iraq right now." Later, Moran noted that the
little girl was injured, too.
The report Moran was introducing examined the dangers posed to civilians by
the large amounts of military ordnance around the country, including both
weapons stockpiles left behind by Saddam Hussein's regime and cluster
bombs dropped by the U.S. and British.
ABC focused on the efforts U.S. Marines were making to dispose of the
weaponry, and concluded that "the Marines did not create this problem, but
Iraqis are sure now looking to them for answers." True, U.S. Marines and
soldiers did not create the problem of Iraqi ammunition stockpiles, but
they-- or, more to the point, their commanders-- did create the problem of
Apart from one passing mention (3/21/03), NBC Nightly News' only
substantive reference to cluster bombs was when Pentagon correspondent
Jim Miklaszewski reported (4/2/03) the use of "a new, more deadly cluster
bomb, designed to take out entire columns of enemy armor and troops." But
the report included no discussion of whether the bombs were being used
near civilians, or what their long-term impact might be.
As for CBS's Evening News, it mentioned cluster bombs only once, almost
inadvertently (4/16/03). The main source for the story was the Army's Gen.
Buford Blount, who Dan Rather interviewed about the "enormous job" the
U.S. military "has taken on in trying to get Iraq up and running again."
At one point, apparently to illustrate the difficult requests the Army
receives very day, the report featured a clip of an Iraqi doctor asking that
the U.S. clean up cluster bombs. Rather let the substance of the comment
pass without remark, ending the report by saying that the Blount "remains
convinced that his soldiers have made good progress."
Interestingly, CBS aired what seemed to be an expanded version of Rather's
report later that night, on the newsmagazine 60 Minutes II.
Even in the longer story, the focus was on Blount and his struggles to "bring
order out of chaos" in Baghdad, but Rather did pursue the question the
doctor raised: "What about the cluster bomb problem?" Blount answered
that "we didn't use that many of them, but there are evidently some areas
where they-- you know, they've got some-- some areas," and claimed that
though the Air Force may have dropped more, he, as an Army officer, didn't
know where those would be.
The report then showed footage from Rather's visit to a hospital where he
met children gruesomely injured by cluster bombs, including one boy who lost
both eyes and sustained a potentially fatal head wound. "All his mother can
do is weep and try to ease his pain," said Rather.
Clearly, Rather was trying to convey the horrific damage inflicted by cluster
bombs-- something too few mainstream reporters have done-- but his report
stopped short of providing specifics about the extent of "the cluster bomb
problem": Was Blount telling the truth when he said "we didn't use that
many"? How many remain unexploded? Does their use violate international
Contrast TV's lack of curiosity to the noteworthy May 12 Time magazine
story cited above, in which reporter Michael Weisskopf highlighted the
discrepancy between Pentagon claims-- that "only 26 cluster bombs had
landed in civilian areas, resulting in one casualty"--with the reality on the
ground, where in Karbala alone, local clean-up crews "are harvesting about
1,000 cluster bombs a day."
Human Rights Watch-- which warned for months of the danger and possible
illegality of using cluster bombs near populated areas-- has likewise argued
(4/25/03) that "U.S. claims that cluster munitions have not caused
significant damage to civilians in Iraq are highly misleading." The group has
criticized the U.S. and Britain for failing to "come clean" about how many
cluster bombs were dropped and where, so that civilians can be protected
The repercussions of the U.S. and British use of cluster bombs and depleted
uranium weapons will be felt in Iraq for a long time to come. It is essential
that U.S. media push for a full accounting on these issues from the
~ ~ ~
For more information, see: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, " Iraqi cancers,
birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium":
Human Rights Watch's resources about cluster bombs:
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at their web site:
* * *
From Derailing Democracy: . . .
Following the same course that virtually every other major industry has in
the last two decades, a relentless series of mergers and corporate takeovers
has consolidated control of the media into the hands of a few corporate
The result has been that an increasingly agenda has been sold to the
American people by a massive, multi-tentacled media machine that has
become, for all intents and purposes, a propaganda organ of the state....
And it is certainly true that by all outward appearances the United States
does appear to have the very epitome of a free press. . . . Yet behind this
picture of plurality there are clear warning signs that an increasingly
incestuous relationship exists between the media titans and the corporate
military powers that Eisenhower so feared.
For example, the number-one purveyor of broadcast news in this country—
NBC, with both MSNBC and CNBC under its wing, as well as NBC news and a
variety of “news magazines”-- is now owned and controlled by General
Electric, one of the nation’s largest defense contractors.
Is it not significant that as GE’s various media subsidiaries predictably
lined up to cheerlead the use of U.S. military force in Kosovo, it was at
the same time posting substantial profits from the sale of the high tech
tools of modern warfare it so shamelessly glorifies?...
Equally alarming is that those viewers choosing to change channels to CNN,
the reigning king of the cable news titans, were treated to the surreal daily
spectacle of watching Christiane Amapour, who is the wife os State
Department mouthpiece James Rubin, analyze her husband’s daily press
briefings, as though she could objectively respond to the mounds of
disinformation spewing forth from the man with whom she shares her
Were it to occur elsewhere, would this not be denounced as symptomatic of a
We all know that ambitious reporters are driven by an obsessive desire to
get “the scoop.” Does not the mere existence of literally thousands of print
and broadcast news sources, all keeping their eyes on the Pulitzer Prize,
provide ipso facto proof of a free press? Does it not guarantee that all the
news that merits reporting will arrive on our doorstep each morning in a
relatively objective form?
This is a perfectly logical argument, yet there is substantial evidence that
suggests that competition does not in itself overcome the interests of the
For example, while saturation coverage is given to such non-news events as
the premier of a new Star Wars movie, there has not been a single
American media source reporting the fact that the first successful
human clones have been created, despite the staggering implications of
such a scientific milestone. Surely a press motivated by competition to
break the big story would have stumbled upon this one by now, especially
considering that as of this writing, more than a year has passed since the
world was blessed with the first human clone, courtesy of an American
biotechnology firm. (see Send in the Clones)
Of course, this could be due not to media suppression, but to the simple fact
that the press failed to uncover this story. However ... this is far from
being the only newsworthy event that the American media have failed to
take note of, as evidenced throughout this book. It also fails to explain why
the British press seem to have had little trouble unearthing this particular
story, or why the U.S. news media continued to ignore the issue even after it
had appeared in print in the U.K.
Had this story been aired by our own press corps, it surely would have
received an overwhelmingly negative response. This is, no doubt, the very
reason that this story, as well as countless others, has failed to make its
* * *
“You know the one thing that is wrong with this country? Everyone gets
a chance to have their fair say.” — President William J. Clinton
* * *
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in
the major media.” — Former CIA Director William Colby
* * *
For more on the Central Intelligence Agency, GO TO > > > The Secret Nests
* * *
From Derailing Democracy:
The America the Media Don’t Want You to See
A U.N. sponsored truth commission report has concluded that the United
States gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed
“acts of genocide” against the Mayan people during the most brutal armed
conflict in Latin America history - Guatemala’s 36-year civil war [1960-1996].
The report of the independent Historical Clarification Commission ...
contradicts years of official denial about the torture, kidnaping and
execution of thousands of civilians in a war that the commission estimates
killed more than 200,000 Guatemalans.” — New York Times, Feb 26, 1999... .
In one of the most well-documented cases of CIA complicity in state-sponsored slaughter, the United States trained, armed, and funded the
military apparatus of our client state for years while it engaged in the
wholesale torture and killing of tens of thousands of its people.
The vast majority of those killed by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan government
were Mayan Indians, thereby paying tribute to that time-honored American
tradition of conducting acts of genocide against indigenous peoples.
* * *
From Derailing Democracy: . . .
The U.S. media have become quite adept at sterilizing war, shamelessly
blurring the line between war and entertainment. The cable news networks
in particular have pioneered the presentation of armed conflict as part video
game and part mini-series, complete with theme music and logos....
Year: 1990- ?
Estimated Deaths: 1,500,000+
Overview: A six-week aerial bombardment directed at the civilian
infrastructure featured the use of fuel-air bombs, depleted uranium, napalm,
cluster bombs, cruise missiles, and “smart bombs.” Followed by a decade of
exceedingly harsh economic sanctions and periodic bombings.
Bonus Points: Featured extensive use of radioactive DU weaponry, which has
resulted in alarmingly high cancer rates and birth abnormalities.
* * *
“The 6-week war in 1991 resulted in the large-scale destruction of military
and civilian infrastructures alike. ... The sanctions imposed on Iraq and
related circumstances have prevented the country from repairing all of its
damaged or destroyed infrastructure ... This has affected the quality of life
of countless Iraqi citizens ... The vast majority of the country’s population
has been on a semi-starvation diet for years. ... Diseases such as malaria,
typhoid and cholera, which were once almost under control, have rebounded
since 1991 at epidemic levels, with the health sector as a helpless witness ...”
— The World Health Organization - March, 1996
* * *
“Sanctions have taken the lives of well over one million persons, 60% of
whom are children under five years of age. The 1991 bombing campaign
destroyed electric, water and sewage plants, as well as agricultural, food and
medical production facilities. All of these structures continue to be
inoperative, or function as sub-minimal levels, because the sanctions have
made it impossible to buy spare parts for their repair. The bombing
campaign, together with the total embargo in place since August 1990 was,
and is, an attack against the civilian population of Iraq.” — U.S. Bishops
Statement on Iraq - Jan, 1998 - (Signed by 53 Catholic bishops)
* * *
“4,500 children under the age of five are dying each month from hunger and
disease. ... Many are living on the very margin of survival.” — UNICEF - Oct,
* * *
“One of the clearest examples of the U.S.A.’s changing attitude to human
rights violations in different circumstances is that of Iraq. During the
1980s, Iraqi forces committed gross and widespread abuses ... Amnesty
International repeatedly appealed for action, yet neither the U.S.
authorities nor the UN responded ... After Iraq invaded Kuwait in August
1990 ... the U.S.A. repeatedly cited the Iraqi government’s appalling human
rights record to gather support for UN military intervention in the Gulf.” —
Amnesty International - October, 1998
* * *
“More than one million Iraqis have died— 567,000 of them children— as a
direct consequence of economic sanctions ... As many as 12 percent of the
children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28 percent stunted and 29 percent
underweight.” — United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization - Dec,
* * *
Lesley Stahl: “We have heard that half a million children have died. That is
more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Secretary of State Madeleline Albright: “I think this is a very hard
choice. But the price— we think the price is worth it.”
— An exchange on CBS’s 60 Minutes - May, 1996
* * *
“We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam
Hussein is in power.” — Secretary of State James Baker - May, 1991
* * *
“There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the (Bush)
Administration ... I have no intention of normalizing relations with him.” —
President-Elect Bill Clinton - Jan, 1993
* * *
“We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its
obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be
lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful
intentions ... And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein’s
intentions will never be peaceful.” — Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright - March, 1997
* * *
“Sanctions may stay on in perpetuity.” — U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson -
* * *
“What he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the
end of time...” -- President Bill Clinton - Nov, 1997
* * *
Beginning in the Gulf War, U.S. military forces began using a new type
of weapon whose attributes are rarely discussed in the American press.
These are sometimes referred to euphemistically as “tank killers” or “anti-tank rounds,” though what it is that renders them so effective for this
purpose is never mentioned. These rounds are credited with destroying some
1,400 Iraqi tanks, performing well above Pentagon expectations and thereby
assuring their continued use in future U.S. wars of aggression, as their
deployment in both Bosnia and Kosovo clearly demonstrates.
Composed of an extremely dense metal, these weapons are able to
concentrate an enormous amount of weight at the point of impact, giving
them unprecedented penetrating power As an added bonus, the material
from which these tank killers are manufactured is pyrophoric, fragmenting
and igniting upon impact. And best of all, the material is cheap and readily
available. In fact, prior to its recently discovered military use, vast
stockpiles of it sat unused for years, decades even.
Of course, in those days it had a different name than it does today. Back
then we knew it simply as “nuclear waste.”
Today, the military knows it as DU, or depleted uranium. It is, in fact, a
radioactive byproduct of the nuclear weapons and power industries, which
previously had presented these industries with long-term storage problems.
But not anymore. Thanks to the ingenuity of U.S. weapons designers, we are
now able to dump our radioactive waste on “rogue” nations such as Serbia and
In “Operation Desert Storm” alone, some 940,000 small-caliber DU rounds
were fired into Iraq and Kuwait from such aircraft as the A10 Warthog and
the Apache helicopter. In addition, anywhere from 6,000 to 14,000 large-caliber DU rounds were fired from U.S. tanks.
All told, anywhere from 40 to 300 tons of radioactive uranium were left
lettering the battlefields of the Gulf war, several times the 25 tons that a
report by Britain’s Atomic Energy Authority concluded could cause “500,000
potential deaths.” . . .
* * *
“The Committee concludes that it is unlikely that health effects reports by
Gulf War Veterans today are the result of exposure to depleted uranium
during the Gulf War.” — Presidential Advisory Committee of Gulf War
Veterans’ Illnesses, “Final Report.” — Dec, 1996
* * *
“Inhaled insoluble oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer
risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and
a toxicity risk.” — U.S. General Accounting Office, “Operation Desert
Storm Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal with Depleted Uranium
Contamination” — Jan, 1993
* * *
“DU is inherently toxic. This toxicity can be managed, but it cannot be
changed.” — Army Environmental Policy Institute, “Health and
Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army” —
* * *
“Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term
effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer.” — AMMCOM, “Kinetic
Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study” — July, 1990
* * *
“The Pentagon’s assertion that no Gulf War veterans could be ill from
exposure to DU ... contradicts numerous pre- and post-war reports, some
form the U.S. Army itself.” — Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), Sept, 1998
* * *
“The number of cancer cases and birth defects among Iraqi civilians in Basra,
Al-Amarah, An-Nasiriyah and Ad-Diwaniyah has grown at least threefold
since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, according to Iraqi doctors and medical
records. ... Most alarming, doctors say, is a sharp rise in leukemia cases
among children, including some who were born more than nine months after
the end of the war, suggesting that some environmental carcinogens may
have lingered long after the war ended or that some war-related
contaminants may be causing genetic damage. . . .” — San Jose Mercury
News — Mar 19, 1998
Iraq says U.S.-British Air Strike Kills 23;
Allies Deny Charge
by Aleksandar Vasovic
June 21, 2001 (AP) - Iraq’s state-run television claimed yesterday that a
U.S.-British air strike killed 23 people during a soccer game and showed
children reportedly injured in the attack.
U.S. officials blamed a malfunctioning Iraqi anti-aircraft missile.
The Iraqi News Agency said allied planes attacked Tall Afar, 275 miles
northwest of Baghdad. The victims were said to be buried yesterday. Eleven
others were injured, the agency said. . . .
From The Sisters Community ( http://www.do4self.org ):
On September 11, 2001
35,615 children also died through hunger.
~ ~ ~
HERE’S THE STATISTICS...
Victims: 35,615 (according to FAO)
Location: THE POOREST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD
Special TV reports on the tragedy: NONE
Newspaper articles: NONE
Messages from heads of states: NONE
Appeals by organizations against the crisis: NONE
Solidarity messages: NONE
Minutes of silence: NONE
Homages to the victims: NONE
Special forums organized: NONE
Messages from the Pope: NONE
Stock exchanges: SITUATION NORMAL
Alarm level: NONE
Mobilization of armed forces: NONE
MEDIA SPECULATION over the identity of the perpetrators of this
Those responsible for this crime.
ALL OF US
From Corporate Predators, 05/15/98:
On Foreign Bribery,
Justice is Out to Lunch
When it comes to prosecuting corporate crimes, Bill Clinton’s Justice Dept is
a tiger against the smaller corporate violators, but a pussy cat when it comes
to facing down the giant criminals....
In some areas where big business dominates the field— as in the field of
bribing foreign governments— the Justice Department is just out to lunch....
Lawyers handling foreign bribery cases report there has been a sharp
increase in business over the past couple of years ... Why then aren’t
newspapers full of stories about how U.S. companies are bribing overseas?
Because the Justice Dept is burying the cases ...
A case reported by the Cincinnati Enquirer ... will tell much about Clinton
Administration and foreign bribery.
The year-long investigation by the Enquirer found that Chiquita Brands
International Inc., the world’s largest banana company, is engaged in a range
of questionable business practices . . .
Reporters Mike Gallagher and Cameron McWhirter also reported Chiquita
and its subsidiaries are engaged in pesticide practices that threaten the
health of workers and nearby residents . . .
And the paper reported that Chiquita allegedly made business decisions in
Latin America to cover up a bribery scheme involving company and subsidiary
employees and helped foreign growers try to evade taxes. . . .
The SEC is investigating these very public allegations. But where is the
Justice Department? Will this be just another case that gets clogged in the
[In June 1998, the Cincinnati Enquirer fired Gallagher, “renounced” the
expose, and paid Chiquita $10 million to ward off a possible lawsuit. The
Enquirer, owned by Gannett, did not challenge the accuracy of Gallagher’s
reporting, but did allege that Gallagher illegally raided Chiquita’s e-mail
system. In Sept 1998, Gallagher pled guilty to two felony counts relating to
the illegal interception.]
From a British Anti-Vivisection Association commentary on The Drug Story,
by Hans Ruesch:
In the 30's, Morris A. Bealle, a former city editor of the old Washington
Times and Herald, was running a county seat newspaper, in which the local
power company bought a large advertisement every week. This account
took quite a lot of worry off Bealles’ shoulders when the bills came due.
But according to Bealle’s own story, one day the paper took up the cudgels
for some of its readers that were being given poor service from the power
company, and Morris Bealle received the dressing down of his life from the
advertising agency, which handled the power company’s account. They told
him that any more such “stepping out of line” would result in the immediate
cancellation not only of the advertising contract, but also of the gas company
and the telephone company.
That’s when Bealle’s eyes were opened to the meaning of a “free press”, and
he decided to get out of the newspaper business. He could afford to do that
because he belonged to the landed gentry of Maryland, but not all newspaper
editors are that lucky.
Bealle used his professional experience to do some deep digging into the
freedom-of-the-press situation and came up with two shattering exposes -
“The Drug Story”, and “The House of Rockefeller”. The fact is that in
spite of his familiarity with the editorial world and many important personal
contacts, he couldn’t get his revelations into print until he founded his own
company, The Columbia Publishing House, Washington, D.C., in 1949...
Although “The Drug Story” is one of the most important books on health
and politics ever to appear in the USA, it has never been admitted to a
major bookstore nor reviewed by any establishment paper, and was sold
exclusively by mail. Nevertheless, when we first got to read it, in the 1970s,
it was already in its 33rd printing, under a different label - Biworld
Publishers, Orem, Utah.
As Bealle pointed out, a business which makes 6% on its invested capital is
considered a sound money maker. Sterling Drug, Inc., the main cog and
largest holding company in the Rockefeller Drug Empire and its 68
subsidiaries, showed operating profits in 1961 of $23,463,719 after taxes,
on net assets of $43,108,106— a 54% profit. Squibb, another Rockefeller-controlled company, in 1945 made not 6% but 576% on the actual value of its
That was during the luscious war years when the Army Surgeon General’s
Office and the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery were not only acting as
promoters for Drug Trust, but were actually forcing drug trust poisons into
the blood streams of American soldiers, sailors and marines, to the tune of
over 200 million “shots”.
Is it any wonder, asked Bealle, that the Rockefellers, and their stooges in
the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S Public Health Service, the
Federal Trade Commission, the Better Business Bureau, the Army Medical
Corps, the Navy Bureau of Medicine, and thousands of health officers all
over the country, should combine to put out of business all forms of therapy
that discourage the use of drugs.
“The last annual report of the Rockefeller Foundation,” reported Bealle,
“itemizes the gifts it has made to colleges and public agencies in the past 44
years, and they total somewhat over half a billion dollars. The colleges, of
course, teach their students all the drug lore the Rockefeller houses want
taught. . . .
And while “giving away” those huge sums to drug-propagandizing colleges,
the Rockefeller interests were growing to a world-wide web that no one
could entirely explore. Already well over 30 years ago it was large enough
for Bealle to demonstrate that the Rockefeller interests had created, built
up and developed the most far reaching industrial empire ever conceived in
the mind of man. Standard Oil was of course the foundation upon which all
of the other Rockefeller industries have been built.
The story of Old John D., as ruthless an industrial pirate as ever came down
the pike, is well known, but is being today conveniently ignored. The
keystone of this mammoth industrial empire was the Chase National Bank,
now renamed the Chase Manhattan Bank..
Not the least of its holdings are in the drug business.
The Rockefellers own the largest drug manufacturing combine in the
world, and use all of their other interests to bring pressure to increase
the sale of drugs....
~ ~ ~
The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General
An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation ... was formed in 1910 and
through long finagling and lots of Rockefeller money got the New York
legislature to issue a charter on May 14, 1913.
It is therefore not surprising that the House of Rockefeller has had its own
“nominees” planted in all Federal agencies that have to do with health. . . .
“Even the most independent newspapers are dependent on their press
associations for their national news,” Bealle pointed out, “and there is no
reason for a news editor to suspect that a story coming over the wires of
the Associated Press, the United Press or the International News Service is
censored when it concerns health matter. Yet this is what happens
In fact in the 50's the Drug Trust had one of its directors on the
directorate of the Associated Press. He was no less that Arthur Hays
Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and as such one of the most
powerful Associated Press directors....
America’s Medico-Drug Cartel.
The medico-drug cartel was summed up by J.W. Hodge, M.D., of Niagara
Falls, N.Y., in these words:
“The medical monopoly or medical trust, euphemistically called the American
Medical Association, is not merely the meanest monopoly ever organized, but
the most arrogant, dangerous and despotic organization which ever managed
a free people in this or any other age.
“Any and all methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural
remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders of
the AMA doctors’ trust as fakes, frauds and humbugs.”
Rockefeller’s various “educational” activities had proved so profitable in the
U.S. that in 1927 the International Educational Board was launched, as
Junior’s own, personal charity, and endowed with $21,000,000 for a starter,
to be lavished on foreign universities and politicos, with all the usual strings
attached. This Board undertook to export the “new” Rockefeller image as a
benefactor of mankind, as well as his business practices. Nobody informed
the beneficiaries that every penny the Rockefellers seemed to the throwing
out the window would come back, bearing substantial interest, through the
Rockefeller had always had a particular interest in China, where Standard Oil
was almost the sole supplier of kerosene and oil “for the lamps of China”. So
he put up money to establish the China Medical Board and to build the Peking
Union Medical College, playing the role of the Great White Father who has
come to dispense knowledge on his lowly children. The Rockefeller
Foundation invested up to $45,000,000 into “westernizing” (read
corrupting) Chinese medicine.
Medical colleges were instructed that if they wished to benefit from the
Rockefeller largesse they had better convince 500 million Chinese to throw
into the ashcan the safe and useful, but inexpensive, herbal remedies of
their barefoot doctors, which had withstood the test of centuries, in favor
of the expensive carcinogenic and teratogenic “miracle” drugs Made in USA—
which had to be replaced constantly with new ones when the fatal side-effects could no longer be concealed; and if they couldn’t “demonstrate”
through large-scale animal experiments the effectiveness of their ancient
acupuncture, this could not be recognized as having any “scientific value”.
Its millenarian effectiveness proven on human beings was of no concern to
the Western wizards.
But when the Communists came to power in China and it was no longer
possible to trade, the Rockefellers suddenly lost interest in the health of
the Chinese people and shifted their attention increasingly to Japan, India
and Latin America.
“No candid study of his career can lead to other conclusion than that he
is victim of perhaps the ugliest of all passions, that for money, money
as an end. It is not a pleasant picture ... this money-maniac secretly,
patiently, eternally plotting how he may add to his wealth ... He has
turned commerce to war, and honey-combed it with cruel and corrupt
practices ... And he calls his great organization a benefaction, and
points to his church-going and charities as proof of his righteousness.
This is supreme wrong-doing cloaked by religion. There is but one name
for it — hypocrisy.”
This was the description Ida Tarbell made of John D. Rockefeller in her
“History of the Standard Oil Company” serialized in 1905 in the widely
circulated McClure’s Magazine. And that was several years before the
“Ludlow Massacre” . . .
But after World War II it would have been hard to read, in America or
abroad, a single criticism of JDR, or of Junior’s four sons who all endeavored
to emulate their illustrious forbears.
Today’s various encyclopedias extant in public libraries of the Western world
have nothing but praise for the Family. How was this achieved?...
Ironically, two apparently most NEGATIVE events in the career of JDR
brought about a huge POSITIVE change in his favor ... To wit:
In the year when, according to the current Encyclopaedia Britannica (long
become a Rockefeller property and transferred from Oxford to Chicago),
Rockefeller had “retired from active business”, namely in 1911, he had been
convicted by a U.S. court of illegal practices and ordered to dissolve the
Standard Oil Trust, which comprised 40 corporations.
This imposed dissolution was to provide his Empire with added might, to a
degree that was unprecedented in the history of modern business. Until
then, the Trust had existed for all to see— an exposed target. After that,
it went underground, and thereby its power was cloaked in secrecy, and could
keep expanding unseen and therefore unopposed.
The second apparently negative experience was a certain 1914 event (“The
Ludlow Massacre”) that persuaded JDR, until then utterly contemptuous of
public opinion, to gloss over his own image.
(For the story of the Ludlow Massacre, see Workers of the World in Part
The worldwide revulsion that followed was such that JDR decided to hire the
most talented press agent in the country, Ivy Lee, who got the tough
assignment of whitewashing the tycoon’s bloodied image.
When Lee learned that the newly organized Rockefeller Foundation had $100
million lying around for promotional purposes without knowing what to do with
it, he came up with a plan to donate large sums - none less than a million - to
well-known colleges, hospitals, churches and benevolent organizations.
The plan was accepted. So were the millions.
And they made headlines all over the world, for in the days of the gold
standard and the five cent cigar, there was a maxim in every newspaper
office that a million dollars was always news.
That was the beginning of the cleverly worded medical reports on new
“miracle” drugs and “just-around-the-corner” breakthroughs planted in the
leading news offices and press associations that continue to this day.
And the flighty public soon forgot, or forgave, the massacre of foreign
immigrants for the dazzling display of generosity and philanthropy financed
by the ballooning Rockefeller fortune and going out, with thunderous press
fanfare, to various “worthy” institutions.
The Purchase of Public Opinion
In the following years, not only newsmen, but whole newspapers were bought,
financed or founded with Rockefeller money. So Time Magazine, which
Henry Luce started in 1923, had been taken over by J.P. Morgan when the
magazine got into financial difficulties. When Morgan died and his financial
empire crumbled, the House of Rockefeller wasted no time in taking over this
lush editorial plum also, together with its sisters Fortune and Life...
Rockefeller was also co-owner of Time’s “rival” magazine, Newsweek, which
had been established in the early days of the New Deal with money put up by
Rockefeller, Vincent Astor, the Harrimann family and other members and
allies of the House.
The Intellectuals - A Bargain
For all his innate cynicism, JDR must have been himself surprised to discover
how easily the so-called intellectuals could be bought. Indeed, they turned
out to be among his best investments.
By founding and lavishly endowing his Education Boards at home and abroad,
Rockefeller won control not only of the governments and politicos but also of
the intellectual and scientific community, starting with the Medical Power -
the organization that forms those priests of the New Religion that are the
modern medicine men.
No Pulitzer or Nobel or any similar prize endowed with money and prestige
has ever been awarded to a declared foe of the Rockefeller system.
Henry Luce, officially founder and editor of Time Magazine, but constantly
dependent on House advertising, also distinguished himself in his adulation of
his sponsors. JDR’s son had been responsible for the Ludlow massacre, and
an obedient partner in his father’s most unsavory actions.
Nonetheless, in 1956 Henry Luce put Junior on the cover of Time, and the
feature story, soberly titled “The Good Man”, included hyperboles like, “It is
because John D. Rockefeller Jr.’s is a life of constructive social giving that
he ranks as an authentic American hero, just as certainly as any general who
ever won a victory for an American army or any statesman who triumphed in
behalf of U.S. diplomacy.”
Clearly, Time’s editorial board wasn’t given the choice to change its tune even
after the passing of Junior and Henry Luce, since it remained just as
dependent of House of Rockefeller advertising.
Thus, when in 1979 one of Junior’s sons, Nelson A. Rockefeller died — who
had been one of the loudest hawks in the Vietnam and other American wars,
and was personally responsible for the massacre of prisoners and hostages
at Attica prison — Time said of him in its obituary, without laughing:
“He was driven by a mission to serve, improve and uplift his country.”...
* * *
From Corporate Predators, 4/17/98:
The More You Watch,
the Less You Know
Here’s another reason not to watch television: corporate media
conglomerates are getting rid of the few remaining aggressive television
Last year, two such reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, were added to
the list of road kill on the television superhighway when they were fired
from the WTVT Fox Television affiliate in Tampa, Fla.
In a lawsuit filed against the station earlier this month, Akre and Wilson
alleged that Fox executives ordered them to broadcast lies about
Monsanto’s controversial bovine growth hormone (BGH) now being used by
many of the nation’s dairy farmers.
The journalists say they were fired from the Fox-owned WTVT in Tampa
after completing a four-part series on BGH in the Florida milk supply.
The series alleged, among other things, that supermarkets in Florida have
been selling milk from cows injected with BGH, despite promises by those
supermarkets that they would not buy milk from treated cows until the
hormone gained widespread public acceptance.
BGH was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1993 over the
objections of independent scientists who contend that use of the hormone
poses health risks to milk drinkers.
Such concerns have led the European Union, Australia and New Zealand
to prohibit use of BGH in cows.
Wilson says that just prior to the first scheduled air date (2/24/97),
Monsanto’s outside libel attorney sent a threatening letter to Roger Ailes,
president of Fox Network News.
As a result of that letter, the series was postponed, and Wilson and Akre
agreed to go back to Monsanto to give the company another chance to
respond to the allegations...
This drew another letter for Monsanto’s lawyer. ... Wilson says the letters
were the beginning of a successful campaign by Monsanto to kill the story.
A meeting was held at the station March 5, 1997 to discuss the issue, but
Wilson and Akre were not invited.
“After that, the script was reworked,” Wilson says. ... “We were essentially
presented with an order to run the script in the altered fashion ...”
Wilson says that Fox first threatened to fire them when they refused to
broadcast what Wilson and Akre considered to be false and misleading
Unlike many of their supine brethren within the industry, Wilson and Akre
stood up to the corporate bosses. Wilson told general manager, David
Boylan, “If you fire us for refusing to broadcast this information that we
have already documented to you is false and misleading ... we will go directly
to the Federal Communications Commission and file a complaint....”
After threatening to go to the FCC, the station responded by offering
about $200,000 to the reporters if they would agree to a gag order.
Wilson and Akre refused and were then assigned to rewrite the story 73
times over the course of the remaining 9 months on their contract. ...
They were fired on Dec 2, 1997.
In the lawsuit filed against the station, Wilson and Akre allege that the
station violated the state’s whistleblower statute...
In a two-page statement, WTVT said that it “ended the employment of the
Wilson/Akre team when it became apparent that their journalistic
differences could not be resolved despite the station’s extraordinary
efforts to complete this story.”
Wilson was having none of the station’s explanation.
“We set out to tell Florida consumers the truth a giant chemical company and
a powerful dairy lobby clearly doesn’t want them to know,” Wilson said.
“That used to be something investigative reporters won awards for.
Sadly, as we’ve learned the hard way, it’s something you can be fired
for these days whenever a news organization places more value on its
bottom line than on delivering the news to its viewers honestly.”
From Corporate Predators, 10/23/98: . . . After 28 years of continuous
publication, The Ecologist, England’s leading environmental magazine, is
having a tough time finding its audience.
Perhaps that has something to do with the subject matter of the current
issue: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering.
Penwell, a small Cornwall-based company that has printed The Ecologist for
the past 26 years, decided late last month to shred all 14,000 copies of the
Sept/Oct 1998 special Monsanto issue.
England’s stringent libel laws apply not only to publishers but to printers as
After the pulping of the Monsanto issue, the editors of The Ecologist then
found another printer who printed a second run of 16,000 copies. But now,
the U.K.’s two major retailers are refusing to carry the magazine on
The Monsanto issue carries tough attacks on the St. Louis-based biotech
giant, including reviews of its links to major corporate disasters involving
Agent Orange, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), genetically engineered
bovine grown hormone (BGH), Round-Up herbicide, and the terminator
(GET THIS: When you plant this seed, you get a plant and sterile seeds.
That way, farmers can’t save the seed for the next planting season— they
have to go back to Monsanto and buy more seed.)
Monsanto says it had nothing to do with the shredding of the magazine or
with the fact that big retailers are refusing to carry it....
For more, GO TO > > > The Biotech Birds
THE TOP 10 CENSORED STORIES OF 2000
From Project Censored (Source AlterNet.org.)
1. World Bank and Multinational Companies Seek to Privatize Water.
(Awards to Jum Shultz, In These Times and This; Maude Barlow,
International Forum on Globalizaation; Vandana Shiva, Canadian Dimension;
Daniel Zoll and Pratap Chatterjee, San Francisco Bay Guardian.)
The authors of this year’s first-place award all started with the same
premise” that global water consumption is doubling every 20 years and that
by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to rise to 56 percent more
than the amount of water currently available.
This frightens environmentalists. But for officials at international lending
institutions and multinational companies, it’s a business opportunity.
“Water is the last infrastructure frontier for private investors,” declared
one banking official.
Monsanto Corporation certainly agrees; it plans to earn revenues of $420
million and a net income of $63 million by 2008 from its water businesses in
India and Mexico.
The Bechtel Corporation is also on the case, but has botched its scramble
for blue gold. While attempting to privatize the local water system of
Cochamba, Bolivia, not only did they provoke mass strikes that injured
hundreds and shut down the city of 600,000 for a week, but they sought to
pin the blame for the uprising on narcotics traffickers. Nevertheless, this
bad PR has not stopped Bechtel– the company appears to be positioning itself
to privatize San Francisco’s water system....
~ ~ ~
7. Biotech Industry Censors Critics of Genetically Engineered Food.
(Awards to Joel Bleifuss, In These Times; Karen Charman, Extra!; Ben
Lilliston, Multinational Monitor.)
In 1998, Scottish researcher Arpad Pusztai found that genetically
engineered (GE) potatoes seemed to be causing sickness and poor brain
development in rats.
When he went to the press with his preliminary findings, the biotech
industry – poised to make billions from GE foods – came down on him like a
ton of bricks.
Pusztai was quickly fired by his employer, the Rowert Research Institute,
while his research team was disbanded and his data seized. It later came out
that Rowert had received a $224,000 grant from biotech giant Monsanto
prior to Pusatai’s firing.
Pusztai pushed his case in the media, creating a firestorm of controversy in
the British press. His main point: Why not continue the experiments he had
started to determine the health risks of GE potatoes?
Eventually, he found an ally in Prince Charles, who wrote a widely publicized
article in the Daily Mail questioning the lack of safety testing on GE foods.
In a highly unusual move, British Prime Minister Tony Blair – a biotech
advocate – called Charles to advise him to withdraw his opinion and refrain
from any further public comments.
Just another startling illustration of how effectively industry, in collusion
with industry-friendly government officials, can squash opinions or evidence
that might threaten profit margins.
The BGH Scandals – The Incredible Story of
Jane Akre & Steve Wilson (Part 1)
PR Watch, Volume 7, No. 4, Fourth Quarter 2000
In our Second Quarter 1998 issue, PR Watch wrote about TV investigative
reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who were fired after refusing to go
along with misleading alterations to their story about Monsanto's
genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone.
Akre and Wilson recently won a landmark whistleblower lawsuit against the
station that fired them, yet their former network continues its legal
efforts to reverse the ruling and crush them financially.
In this issue, we are honored to publish Jane Akre's firsthand account of
her experiences standing up to corporate and media powers that have tried
to silence them.
Journalists everywhere should take a close look at this case and its
implications. If the Fox network and Monsanto get away with destroying the
careers of these two seasoned reporters, the same thing can happen to
anyone who tries to stand up for a story that they believe in. With few
resources other than the courage of their convictions, Akre and Wilson have
struggled to place issues before the public that otherwise would remain
hidden from view. In addition to their battle in the courts, they have used
the skills they honed in the newsroom to fight back in the court of
They have created a website ( www.foxBGHsuit.com ) that includes a
downloadable video of their suppressed news story, plus court documents and
other facts about their case. We encourage you to visit their website and, in
light of their continuing financial struggles, to consider making a donation to
We hope that after reading their story, you will also share it with others and
help get the word out. The public needs to inform itself and take action when
the news media fails to do its job properly, and this is an egregious example.
~ ~ ~
The Cost of Taking a Stand
"Today, few people recognize
by Jane Akre
After three judges, 27 months of pre-trial wrangling and five weeks of
courtroom testimony, the jury finally had its say. On August 18, 2000, it
awarded me $425,000 in damages for being fired by TV station WTVT in
WTVT is a Fox station, owned by one of the richest people in the media,
Rupert Murdoch. The verdict made me the first journalist ever to win a
"whistleblower" judgment in court against a news organization accused of
illegally distorting the news.
Notwithstanding this vindication, I have yet to collect a dime of that jury
award. There is no telling how long Fox will drag out the appeals process as
it seeks to have the judgment overturned by a higher court. Meanwhile, I
am still out of work, as is my husband and fellow journalist Steve Wilson,
who was also fired by Fox and who filed suit along with me. December 2
marked the third anniversary of our firing for refusing to falsify a news
story in order to appease the powerful Monsanto Company.
You would think that our jury verdict, with its landmark significance for
journalists everywhere, would spark some interest from the news media
itself. Instead, the silence has been deafening. One of the biggest names in
investigative reporting at one of the best network newsmagazines took a look
at our case--and then decided not to do a story. Why not? It was deemed
"too inside baseball." Translation: there is an unwritten rule that news
organizations seldom turn their critical eyes on themselves or even
This rule is not absolute, of course. Some previous legal challenges involving
the media have received heavy news coverage, including the battle between
60 Minutes and Vietnam-era general William Westmoreland; the "food
disparagement" lawsuit that Texas cattlemen brought against talk-show host
Oprah Winfrey; and the multi-million-dollar lawsuit brought against ABC-TV
by the Food Lion grocery store chain.
All of those other lawsuits, however, involved conflicts between a news
organization and some outside group or individual. Our lawsuit involved a
conflict within the media, pitting labor (working journalists Steve and
myself) against broadcast managers, editors and their attorneys who
hijacked the editorial process in an effort to do what should never be done
in investigative reporting--remove all risk of being sued or sending an
By saying this is just "inside baseball," the veteran newsman who declined to
cover our story was effectively siding with the owners against the players.
Prior to my firing at WTVT, I had worked for 19 years in broadcast
journalism, and Steve's career in front of the camera was even longer. He is
the recipient of four Emmy awards and a National Press Citation. His
reporting achievements include an exposé of unsafe cars that led to the
biggest-ever auto recall in America.
Today, however, we have spent three years off the air, tied up in a seemingly
interminable legal battle. Few people recognize our faces anymore. Our
story has circulated throughout the world via email and our website
(www.foxBGHsuit.com), yet we remain curiously anonymous--so far from
famous, in fact, that even Monsanto's own public relations representatives
sometimes have a hard time recognizing us.
Happy Shining People
I had the opportunity to meet a couple of those industry PR people in
October 2000 at the annual conference of the Society of Environmental
Journalists (SEJ). The conference brought together hundreds of
environmentally conscious, mostly young journalists to Lansing, Michigan, to
delve into topics such as hybrid auto technology, nuclear misdeeds, and Great
Lakes pollution. Together with PR Watch editor Sheldon Rampton, I
participated in a panel discussion titled "Fibbers, Spinners, and Pseudo-journalists."
The SEJ conference also featured an exhibit hall, and in an adjoining room,
the biotech industry had mounted a glossy display, staffed by two
representatives who stood out like a couple of well-suited salesmen at a
college campus. Standing before their expensive photo kiosk depicting gold-drenched fields of harvest, they offered literature from the Council for
Biotechnology Information, an industry-funded organization whose stated
mission is "to create a public dialogue." It's all part of industry's $50-million
PR campaign touting the safety and benefits of genetically engineered foods.
Its slick handouts at the SEJ conference reeked of the moneyed
corporations they represent – Aventis, CropScience, Dow Chemical,
DuPont, Monsanto and Novartis among others.
Stuck inside one of their glossy presentations was a list of ten "tenets for
consumer acceptance of food biotechnology." Among the tips:
"Biotechnology must be placed in context with the evolution of agricultural
practices," and "Emphasize the exhaustive research over many years that led
to the introduction of each new product of food biotechnology."
Also included was a list of biotech food products you've probably already
consumed or used. Corn, cotton, potatoes, soybeans, and sweet potatoes
were on the list, as was rBGH milk produced using Monsanto's recombinant
bovine growth hormone that is reportedly now injected into more than
30% of America's dairy herd.
Our reporting on rBGH (trade named Posilac, and also known as recombinant
bovine somatotropin or rBST) was what got Steve and me fired at Fox
~ ~ ~
We Win; Fox Spins
by Jane Akre
It's perfect. A television news organization, just found guilty of distorting
the news, slants the news regarding the ruling.
The jury rendered its verdict just after five o'clock on the Friday evening of
August 18. Fox WTVT ran the first story near the top of its 6 p.m.
broadcast. The initial story on WTVT was a fairly straightforward report
announcing to Tampa viewers that the jury had awarded me damages because
the "station violated the state's whistleblower law." The news anchor
announced the reason for the verdict in my favor, "because she refused to
lie in that report and threatened to tell the FCC about it."
By 10 p.m., however, the Fox corporate spinmeisters had rewritten the story
entirely, crafting a devastatingly embarrassing loss into "good news" for
their side. "Today is a wonderful day for Fox 13, because I think we are
completely vindicated on the finding of this jury that we do not distort
news, we do not lie about the news, we do not slant the news, we are
professionals," said Fox news director Phil Metlin, looking rather
uncomfortable on camera.
Metlin's statement is at odds with the jury's own unanimous verdict as
clearly stated on the official verdict form, which asks, "Do you find that
Plaintiff Jane Akre has proven, by the greater weight of the evidence, that
the Defendant, through its employees or agents, terminated her employment
or took other retaliatory personnel action against her, because she
threatened to disclose to the Federal Communications Commission under
oath, in writing, the broadcast of a false, distorted, or slanted news report
which she reasonably believed would violate the prohibition against
intentional falsification or distortion of the news on television, if it were
"Yes," the jury answered.
If indeed Fox regards the jury verdict as "complete vindication," the
network should abandon its appeals, accept the verdict, and pay up. The
check would be greatly appreciated. But that will never happen, because Fox
would rather show its other employees in media outlets around the world
what can happen if you mess with Murdoch. They will easily spend four times
our award just to make that point.
~ ~ ~
Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
The Story We Weren't Allowed to Air
by Jane Akre
The truth is, only Monsanto really knows how many U.S. farmers are
presently using their recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). The
company persistently refuses to release sales figures but claims it has now
become the largest-selling dairy animal drug in America. The chemical giant's
secretive operations were part of what made the story of rBGH such a
compelling one for me to explore as an investigative reporter.
In late 1996, my husband Steve Wilson and I were hired as investigative
journalists for the Fox-owned television station in Tampa, Florida. Looking
for projects to pursue, I soon learned that millions of Americans and
their children who consume milk from rBGH-treated cows have
unwittingly become participants in what amounts to a giant public health
Despite promises from grocers that they would not buy rBGH milk "until it
gains widespread acceptance," I discovered and carefully documented how
those promises were quietly broken immediately after they were made three
years earlier. I also learned that health concerns raised by scientists around
the world have never been settled, and indeed, the product has been
outlawed or shunned in every other major industrialized country on the
Clearly, there is not "widespread acceptance" of rBGH, not in 1996 when I
began my research, and not today. By any standard, it was a solid story, but
little did I know that it would become the last story of my 19-year broadcast
journalism career and the heart of a dispute that could nearly destroy me
and my family.
Even if you ask directly, "How much of your milk comes from cows injected
with an artificial growth hormone?" We discovered that you are still likely
to be misled or lied to today.
Steve helped me gather and produce a TV report based on the information
we discovered. The investigation began with random visits to seven farms to
determine whether and how widely rBGH was being used in Florida. I
confirmed its use at every one of the seven farms I visited, and then I
discovered what amounted to an ingenious public relations campaign that
seemed to have succeeded in keeping consumers in the dark.
Remember those Florida grocers who promised consumers that milk from
hormone-treated cows would not end up in the dairy case until it achieved
widespread acceptance from consumers and others? I learned that behind
the scenes, those grocers and the major co-ops of Florida's dairymen had
pulled the wool over the eyes of consumers with what amounted to a clever
"don't ask, don't tell" policy combined with some careful wording to answer
any inquiries about the milk.
In an on-camera interview, the president of one of the two giant dairy co-ops
in the state said that he had written a letter to dairymen on behalf of
grocers requesting that farmers not inject their cows with the artificial
growth hormone. But in response to my questions, the co-op president made a
startling confession. He admitted he did nothing but write the letter!
"Did the dairymen get back to you?" I asked.
"What was their response?"
"They accepted it, I guess. They didn't respond."
To this day, any consumer who calls to inquire gets essentially the same well-coordinated response from a big Florida grocer or their dairy supplier:
"We've asked our suppliers not to use it (rBGH)," they say. It is a truthful
but incredibly misleading statement that nearly always produces the desired
result, leading consumers to the false conclusion that their local milk supply
is unaffected by rBGH use.
Even if you ask directly, "How much of your milk comes from cows injected
with an artificial growth hormone?" we discovered that you are still likely to
be misled or lied to today.
Steve recently made an inquiry to the dairy co-op that supplies the milk
served to our daughter and her classmates in their school cafeteria. First he
was told there was "0%" artificial BGH use. Then a woman in the dairy's
Quality Assurance department offered the assurance that rBGH is not used
at all "as far as we know." Pressed further, she said the co-op "does not
recommend it because cows do just fine without," but ultimately admitted
that the co-ops "have no authority to check whether it is or is not being
Steve pressed further: "Couldn't you just ask the dairy farmers who supply
your milk whether or not they're injecting their cows?"
A long silence followed. Finally, the reply: "I suppose we could, but they could
just lie to us."
After nearly three months of investigation that took me to interviews in five
states, we produced a four-part series that Fox scheduled to begin on
Monday, February 24, 1997. Station managers were so proud of the work
that they saturated virtually every radio station in the Tampa Bay area with
thousands of dollars worth of ads urging viewers to watch. But then, on the
Friday evening prior to the broadcast, the station's pride turned to panic
when a fax arrived from a Monsanto attorney.
The letter minced no words in charging that Steve and I had "no scientific
competence" to report our story. Monsanto's attorney described our news
reports, which he had ostensibly never seen, as a series of "recklessly made
accusations that Monsanto has engaged in fraud, has published lies about
food safety, has attempted to bribe government officials in a neighboring
country and has been 'buying' favorable opinions about the product or its
characteristics from reputable scientists in their respective fields."
And to make sure nobody missed the point, the attorney also reminded Fox
News CEO Roger Ailes that our behavior as investigative journalists was
particularly dangerous "in the aftermath of the Food Lion verdict." He was
referring, of course, to the then-recent case against ABC News that sent a
frightening chill through every newsroom in America.
The Food Lion verdict showed that even with irrefutable evidence from a
hidden camera, documenting the doctoring of potentially unsafe food sold to
unsuspecting shoppers, a news organization that dares to expose a giant
corporation could still lose big in court.
Confronted with these threats, WTVT decided to "delay" the broadcast,
ostensibly to double-check its accuracy. A week later after the station
manager screened the report, found no major problems with its accuracy and
fairness, and set a new air date, Fox received a second letter from
Monsanto's attorney, claiming that "some of the points" we were asking
about "clearly contain the elements of defamatory statements which, if
repeated in a broadcast, could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire
consequences for Fox News."
Never mind that I carried a milk crate full of documentation to support
every word of our proposed broadcast. Our story was pulled again, and if not
dead, it was clearly on life support as Fox's own attorneys and top-level
managers, fearful of a legal challenge or losing advertiser support, looked
for some way to discreetly pull the plug.
The station where we worked had recently been purchased by Fox, and we
soon discovered that the new management had a radically different
definition of media responsibility than anything we had previously
encountered in our journalistic careers. As Fox took control, it fired the
station manager who had originally hired us and replaced him with Dave
Boylan, a career salesman devoid of any roots in journalism and seemingly
lacking in the devotion to serving the public interest which motivates all good
Kill The Story, Kill the Messenger
Dave Boylan, station manager at Fox WTVT, asked, "What would you do if I
killed your rBGH story?"
Not long after Boylan became the new station manager, Steve and I went up
to see him in his office. He promised to look into the trouble we were having
getting our rBGH story on the air, but when we returned a few days later,
his strategy seemed clear.
"What would you do if I killed your rBGH story?" he asked. What he really
wanted to know was whether we would tell anyone the real reason why he was
killing the story. In other words, would we leak details of the pressure from
Monsanto that led to a coverup of what the station had already ballyhooed as
important health information every customer should know?
It was suddenly and unmistakably clear that Boylan's biggest concern was
the concern of every salesman, no matter what product he peddles: image.
He understood that it could not be good for the station's image if word
leaked out that powerful advertisers backed by threatening attorneys could
actually determine what gets on the six o'clock news--and what gets swept
under the rug.
Boylan was in a jam. If he ran an honest story and Monsanto's threatened
"dire consequences" did materialize, his career could be crippled. On the
other hand, if he killed the story and the sordid details leaked out, he risked
losing the only product any newsroom has to sell: its own credibility.
To resolve this dilemma, Boylan devised the sort of "solution" that you might
expect from a salesman. He offered us a deal. He would pay us for the
remaining seven months of our contracts, in exchange for an agreement that
we would broadcast the rBGH story in a way that would not upset Monsanto.
Fox lawyers would essentially have the final say on the exact wording of our
report, and once it aired, we were free to do whatever we pleased– as long as
we forever kept our mouths shut about the entire ugly episode.
As journalists, Steve and I wanted to get the story on the air more than
anything. A buyout, no matter how attractive, was out of the question.
Neither of us could fathom taking money to shut up about a public health
issue that absolutely and by any standard deserved to see the light of day.
The remainder of 1997 was a tense standoff, with the station unwilling to
either kill the story or to run it. Fox attorney Carolyn Forrest was sent in to
review our work, with a mandate from Fox Television Stations President
Mitch Stern to "take no risk" with the story.
"Taking no risk" meant cutting out substance, context and information.
Boylan told us to "just do what Carolyn wants" with the story, but what
Carolyn reallywanted to do was destroy it. We rewrote the story, rewrote it,
and rewrote it again, trying to come up with a version that would both remain
true to the facts and satisfy the station's concerns about airing it.
Meanwhile, Behind the Scenes
Monsanto hadn't stopped with the threatening letters. In January, I had
interviewed Roger Natzke, a dairy science professor at the University of
Florida. Everything had gone well. We got a tour of the "Monsanto dairy
barn" at the Gainesville dairy compound where Posilac had been tested in the
mid-1980s. Natzke gave the product a glowing report and admitted he
promoted its use to farmers through Florida's taxpayer- supported
agriculture extension offices. After spending a few hours with us, Natzke
gave us directions to a good lunch joint.
Natzke must have forgotten about this relatively pleasant exchange when,
one month later, he called the station to complain about my reporting
techniques. "She's not a reporter" was part of the phone message submitted
to my boss alongside the words "St. Simon's Island." What does that mean?
I asked. The assistant news director, apparently not seeing any connection or
conflict, told me that Natzke had just returned from a weekend at the island
resort with Monsanto officials.
The same week that Natzke called and the Monsanto threat letters arrived,
Florida farmer Joe Wright wrote a complaint letter to the station. This time
we were not shown the correspondence. Only in the light of our lawsuit did
the station have to produce it in "discovery" one year later.
The pieces of the puzzle behind the Monsanto pressure began falling into
place. Wright, who had spent five minutes on the phone with me a month
earlier, informed the station that "Ms. Acre's (sic) work is gaining notoriety
in our dairy industry. . . .The word is clearly out on the street that Ms. Acre
is on a negative campaign based on everyone's assessment of the numerous
interviews she has already conducted."
Wright had reached these conclusions after attending the 22nd Annual
Southern Dairy Conference in Atlanta, a "Who's Who" of the dairy industry
where our report was the topic of intense discussion.
Following the conference, he went to Dairy Farmers Inc., a dairy promotion
group, which helped draft his letter of complaint to my employers and
discussed filing a food disparagement suit against the station should the
story air. Behind the scenes, a much more stealthy attack on us and our story
was launched by the Dairy Coalition, a pro-rBGH group formed around the
time of Posilac's FDA approval. Its director, Dick Weiss, took a call from
Steve in 1998 and--not realizing exactly who Steve Wilson was--bragged
that the Dairy Coalition had "swamped the station" with all sorts of
pressure to have the story killed.
As he recounted the story, Weiss laughed like a college kid who had just
pulled the best prank in the frat.
Getting the Boot
Nearly a full year passed as we wrangled over this important public health
story. After turning down the station's buyout offer, we ended up doing 83
rewrites of the story, not one of which was acceptable according to Fox
lawyers, who were fully in charge of the editing process.
"It was like being circus dogs jumping through hoops," Steve said.
At the first window in our contracts, December 2, 1997, we were both fired,
allegedly for "no cause." However, an angry Carolyn Forrest made a major
legal mistake when she wrote a letter spelling out the "definite reasons" for
the firing, and characterizing our response to her proposed editorial changes
as "unprofessional and inappropriate conduct." But as Steve commented when
he read the letter, just what is the "professional and appropriate" response
that reporters should make when their own station asks them to lie on
On April 2, 1998, we filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Fox Television.
Under Florida state law, a whistleblower is an employee, regardless of his or
her profession, who suffers retaliation for refusing to participate in illegal
activity or threatening to report that illegal activity to authorities. We
contended that we were entitled to protection as whistleblowers, because
the distortions our employers wanted us to broadcast were not in the public
interest and violated the law and policy of the Federal Communications
Three months after we were fired and six weeks after we filed our lawsuit,
the station finally got around to airing an rBGH story, filled with many of the
same lies and distortions that Steve and I refused to broadcast. The
reports, aired by a young and inexperienced reporter, looked to us like
nothing more than damage control instigated by Fox attorneys.
~ ~ ~
Who Is the Dairy Coalition?
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
Created by the PR and lobby firm of Capitoline/ MS&L with funding from
the National Milk Producers Federation, the Dairy Coalition is composed of
business, government and non-profit groups, including university
researchers funded by Monsanto as well as other carefully selected "third
Dick Weiss, director of the Dairy Coalition, now works with former
Monsanto rBGH lobbyist Carol Tucker Foreman at the Consumer Federation
Dairy Coalition participants include:
The International Food Information Council, which calls itself "a non-profit
organization that disseminates sound, scientific information on food safety
and nutrition to journalists, health professionals, government officials and
In reality, IFIC is a public relations arm of the food and beverage industries,
which provide the bulk of its funding. Its staff members hail from industry
groups such as the Sugar Association and the National Soft Drink
Association, and it has repeatedly led the defense for controversial food
additives including monosodium glutamate, aspartame (Nutrasweet), food
dyes, and olestra.
The American Farm Bureau Federation, the powerful conservative lobby
behind the movement to pass food disparagement laws like the one under
which Oprah Winfrey was sued in Texas.
The American Dietetic Association, a national association of registered
dietitians that works closely with IFIC and hauls in large sums of money
advocating for the food industry. Its stated mission is to "improve the
health of the public," but with 15 percent of its budget--more than $3
million--coming from food companies and trade groups, it has learned not to
bite the hand that feeds it.
"They never criticize the food industry," says Joan Gussow, a former head of
the nutrition education program at Teachers College at Columbia University.
The ADA's website even contains a series of "fact sheets" about various
food products, sponsored by the same corporations that make them
(Monsanto for biotechnology; Procter & Gamble for olestra; Ajinomoto
for MSG; the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers for fats
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture,
representing the top executive of every department of agriculture in all 50
The Grocery Manufacturers of America, whose member companies account
for more than $460 billion in sales annually. GMA itself is a lobbying
powerhouse in Washington, spending $1.4 million for that purpose in 1998
and currently-funding a multi-million-dollar PR campaign for genetically
engineered foods. *
The Food Marketing Institute, a trade association of food retailers and
wholesalers, whose grocery store members represent three fourths of
grocery sales in the United States.
PR Watch is a publication of the Center for Media & Democracy
For more on Aspartame , GO TO > > > The NutraSweet Syndrome
For more parrots of a feather,
JUST FOCUS YOUR FIELD GLASSES BELOW...
Aloha, Harken Energy!
Connecting the Dots to...AIPAC
A Connecticut Yankee in King Kamehameha’s Court
The Carlyle Group: Birds that Drink from Cesspools
The Blackstone Group
Broken Trust: The Book
Buzzards of Paradise
Claims By Harmon
Dirty Money, Dirty Politics & Bishop Estate
Flying High In Hawaii
The Freedom to Sing
David Farmer, Trustee vs. Harmon
Pimps To Power
Pointing the Finger at WorldPoint
Predators in Paradise
RICO in Paradise
Songs of the Mockingbird
The Indonesian Connection
The Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Report
The Rise and Fall of Summit Communications
The Sinking of the Ehime Maru
Tracking the Flock of AIPAC Vultures
Tracking The Murdoch Flock
Vampires on Gilligan’s Island
Vultures of The Sandwich Isles
Yakuza Doodle Dandies
~ o ~
MORE OF THE CATBIRD’S FAVORITE LINKS
THE CATBIRD SEAT FORUM
THE CATBIRD SEAT
~ o ~
FAIR USE NOTICE. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues,
etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Last update April 28, 2008, by The Catbird