Lawmakers promote hemp as cash crop in Kentucky Associated Press


  FRANKFORT, Ky. — Lawmakers have grown bolder in their push to allow farmers to grow hemp in Kentucky, a Bible-belt state where the issue was once considered politically taboo.

Growing hemp is illegal under federal law, but supporters want to lift the state ban with hopes of Kentucky becoming a leading grower of the versatile crop if the federal ban is lifted.

The House Agriculture and Small Business Committee held a hearing Wednesday on two bills pending in the state Legislature. Neither bill was called for a vote.

Most Kentucky political leaders have dismissed the issue in the past because of fears that voters might somehow conclude that they’re also pro-marijuana. But the issue was a centerpiece in last year’s race for agriculture commissioner, which was won decisively by Jamie Comer, a hemp proponent.

Comer said growing industrial hemp would allow expansion of Kentucky farm markets and create jobs in rural communities.

Industrial hemp, a cousin to marijuana, is used to make fuel, cattle feed, textiles, paper, lotion, cosmetics and other products. Though it contains trace amounts of the mind-altering chemical tetrahydrocannabinol that makes marijuana intoxicating, it remains illegal in the U.S.

Ed Shemelya, regional marijuana coordinator in the Appalachian High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, said police continue to oppose legalization of hemp because there’s no way to visually distinguish it from marijuana.

“It’s an enforcement nightmare,” Shemelya said.

State Rep. Keith Hall, D-Phelps, said he believes people are beginning to realize the potential economic value of hemp and that is allowing political leaders to feel more comfortable in promoting it.

“I would say today that the issue is fear, and the great President Roosevelt said ‘what do we have to fear but fear itself,”’ Hall said.

Hall said people might think it odd that “a Bible-read man” would speak in favor of allowing Kentucky farmers to grow hemp.

“They’re saying the best Bibles are made with hemp paper over in France, because they don’t yellow; they don’t tear; they don’t tarnish,” he said.

Sen. Joey Pendleton, D-Hopkinsville, said he expects the federal government will lift the ban on hemp production in the future, and that he wants Kentucky to be ready to plant the crop as soon as that happens.

Kentucky has an ideal climate for hemp production and during World War II it was a leading grower of the plant that produces strong fibers used in fabrics, ropes and other materials for the military.



Hemp could make a comeback



By Kevin Wheatley

about 23 hours ago

Industrial hemp could make a comeback as one of Kentucky’s top cash crops if lawmakers legalize the harvest of marijuana’s botanical cousin, legislators have told a House committee.

The Agricultural and Small Business Committee on Wednesday heard from key sponsors of two pieces of legislation –House bills 272 and 286 – that would make hemp a legal crop if the federal government lifts restrictions on it. 

The bills didn’t come to a vote, but Rep. Tom McKee, a Cynthiana Democrat and the committee’s chairman, said the discussion would continue so both sides of the argument could be heard.

Sponsors spoke for about 30 minutes, highlighting primarily the many legal products produced by industrial hemp, such as textiles, paper, auto plastics, rope, construction material, cosmetics and feed for cattle.

The trickle-down effect would create 17,000 jobs and result in an economic impact between $400 million and $500 million, said Sen. Joey Pendleton, D-Hopkinsville, quoting a University of Kentucky survey from years ago.

“We’re sitting on the cutting edge and, to me, on a gold mine here of what we can do in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to create jobs and to give our agriculture people another opportunity to grow something,” he said.

Eighty-five percent of industrial hemp produced in Canada is shipped to the U.S., and China sends a large amount here as well, Pendleton added. 

He also noted that Kentucky has an ideal climate and was a top hemp producer prior to and during World War II until the federal government banned it amid political pressure from nylon and paper manufacturers in the 1950s.

While there’s concern that hemp would be confused with marijuana, Pendleton said the two plants can be distinguished easily and cross-pollination between the two plants decreases tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana.

However, Ed Shemelya, regional marijuana coordinator in the Appalachian High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, disagreed and said police continue to oppose legalization of hemp because there’s no way to visually distinguish it from marijuana.

“It’s an enforcement nightmare,” Shemelya said after the meeting.

Rep. Keith Hall, D-Phelps, said hemp oil could be explored as an alternative fuel source. He noted that Henry Ford built his first automobile using hemp products and ran it on hemp diesel fuel.

Bio-diesel fuel produced from hemp emits no sulfur when it’s used, making it the only fuel that passes the Environment Protection Agency’s Clear Air Act, Hall said. 

Hemp plants could also be used on mine reclamation sites as they soak up contaminants, he said. 

Legislators have been hesitant to consider legalizing hemp with its link to marijuana, but Hall said the potential economic impact has thawed some, but not all, concerns.

“I would say today that the issue is fear,” Hall told the panel.

Rep. Terry Mills, D-Lebanon, said 66 percent of his constituents support legalizing industrial hemp.

“… The ag economy is the best its been in 40 years, and we’re seeing that in grain and cattle prices, but we always need diversity in agriculture,” Mills said. 

“If this can be developed as a viable crop in agriculture, it can only help the agriculture community and, again, those people who live out in rural Kentucky.”

It’s unclear how much support the bills have on the House committee, but two members –Rep. Fred Nesler, D-Mayfield, and Rep. Johnny Bell, D-Glasgow –commended sponsors for speaking about the issue.

“I look forward to future discussion,” Nesler said. “I hope we don’t just drag this issue like sometimes we do. This is an issue that almost seems too sensible.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Pending industrial hemp legislation could go to pot



By Brad Bowman

Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 6:19 pm

Two bills in state legislation for the legalization of industrial hemp could offer a transition crop for farmers in Nelson County.  Central Kentucky was the largest producer of hemp during World War II for rope production, but state officials say it isn’t legislation but law enforcement that will decide hemp’s future in the state or Nelson County.

Hemp has been looked at as alternative energy source in the past, according to Nelson County Extension Agent, Ron Bowman.

“If it was feasible at all, we would have to be closer to the actual power plants,” Bowman said. “It all depends on the price of the product, what would it cost to ship it and whether our farmers can actually make money from it.”

Industrial hemp is a non-psychoactive variety of the Cannabis sativa plant. Given its low THC content, it would not be attractive as a recreational drug like marijuana, but the stigma has helped stop its legalization.

Hemp studies have been initiated in the past, but the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration denied permits to the Dean of University of Kentucky’s College of Agriculture Scott Smith.

“There are advocates on both sides of the issue,” Smith said. “The ultimate question is whether hemp is an economic solution for farmers.”

There isn’t sufficient research on industrial hemp to discern whether it is economically viable for farmers, according to Smith. Research exists in Canada and Europe for production, but not the market research needed in the U.S., according to Smith. When the University of Kentucky and Kentucky State University were encouraged to research hemp production, Smith was denied by the DEA.

“We have studies on switch back grass and miscanthus grass which could be just as productive as hemp for an energy source, but we just don’t know enough about it,” Smith said.

Hemp could be the transition crop for local Nelson County tobacco farmers if research could support the crop as an economical and marketable product.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions out there about whether it is right for our farmers. If it can be used in all the different ways people claim that it can, farmers are interested,” State Sen. Jimmy Higdon said. “We need the universities to research it and show that it can work, but we need law enforcement on board to make this happen.”

The bills would require farmers to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture and pass a criminal history check by local sheriffs. Sheriffs would do random test inspections of hemp fields at a fee of $5 per acre with a minimum $150 fee. The money would be divided between the sheriff and agriculture departments.

The transition crop couldn’t come soon enough for farming families looking for an alternative to tobacco, according to State Rep., David Floyd.

“It’s a fact that we need to move tobacco farmers toward another crop,” Floyd said. “A lot has been taken away from tobacco farmers. Years ago, tobacco fields put their children through school. “

Industrial hemp is considered a controlled substance by the DEA. Bound by international treaty laws, the DEA can only legally grant one entity the permit to research cannabis in any form, according to DEA Public Relations Officer Barbara Carreno in Washington D.C. The University of Mississippi currently possesses the permit.

“Our main concern is security. We have security requirements that must be met in regards to researching controlled substances,” Carreno said. “The university is required by law to regularly publish reports for compliance with security and research.”

The permit is just one part of the process for legal research by any entity. The National Institute on Drug Abuse oversees the approval process, which requires the reports from an approved research group. The DEA doesn’t approve or disapprove research, Carreno said.

States that have legalized medicinal marijuana are operating in violation of federal law. North Dakota has sued the DEA for the right to grow industrial hemp, Carreno said. The lack of legal research confuses the issue of industrial hemp and street marijuana sought after by drug users.

“Hemp is long and spindle-like,” Smith said. “There is an argument that cross pollination would render an illegal plant grown in the same field with less than desirable levels of THC, but we don’t have the research to support that.”

The profitability of industrial hemp and the legal hurdles to produce the crop isn’t lost on Kentucky Agricultural Commissioner James Comer.

“The U.S. is the only country that doesn’t grow industrial hemp. North Dakota is suing the DEA because they can see the money being made in Canada,” Comer said. “We will continue to educate people statewide to address the misinformation and the potential it has for our agricultural economy.”

It is a cheaper crop for farmers to put out than crops such as corn grown for ethanol and it is greener. Industrial hemp doesn’t require fertilizer, Comer said.

The crop could produce a significant contribution to the agriculture economy. It wouldn’t be just an opportunity for farmers but the state, according to Comer.

“This could create manufacturing jobs. We have companies that would come here for manufacturing greener products to replace plastic for the automotive industry such as car dashes,” Comer said.

The commissioner maintains an optimistic stance on the legality issues surrounding industrial hemp and its classification. U.S. Representative for Texas’s 14th congressional district, Ron Paul’s introduction of H.R. 1831 would take industrial hemp out of the jurisdiction of the DEA by declassifying it as a controlled substance, according to Comer.

“This is truly a bipartisan issue,” Comer said. “Everyone from the far right to the far left is on board to make this happen. We have to look ahead and we have everything we need without asking for money or raising taxes.”

BRAD BOWMAN can be reached at

Public Education Campaign Aims to Allow Industrial Hemp Farming Again in the U.S.



Public Education Campaign Aims to Allow Industrial Hemp Farming Again in the U.S.
WASHINGTON, March 6, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) and Vote Hemp have announced plans for the 3rd Annual Hemp History Week to be held on June 4-10, 2012. A national grassroots education campaign designed to renew strong support for hemp farming in the U.S., Hemp History Week 2012 will feature events in cities and towns throughout all fifty states. The multi-faceted campaign will feature grassroots volunteer-led events, retail promotions, a restaurant program, a day of action and an online petition drive to encourage the Obama Administration and Congress to change federal policy and allow American farmers to once again grow industrial hemp. A new Web site, along with a promotional video for the 2012 campaign, is viewable at

The theme of the 2012 campaign is Hemp for a Healthy Future: Healthy Lifestyles, Healthy Economy, Healthy Planet. "As more Americans recognize the health and environmental benefits of hemp products, hemp farming promises job creation and economic opportunity for farmers and manufacturers and ensures that nutritious foods and sustainable goods are more accessible and affordable for consumers," says Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp. "In turn, this means healthier lifestyles, a stronger economy and a more sustainable world. Through Hemp History Week 2012, we’re spreading the message that we need to change federal policy on industrial hemp to reflect today’s realities and ensure a better tomorrow for America’s families and farmers, the economy and our planet."


A primary objective of Hemp History Week is to advocate for a federal policy change while sending a strong, positive message to President Barack Obama and Congress to end the ban on hemp farming and let farmers grow the versatile and profitable crop. In 2010 and 2011, the campaign generated thousands of postcards and online petition signatures to the President and Congress. Representatives Ron Paul (R-Texas), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) and many other members of Congress support legislation in favor of a federal policy change. A companion Senate bill is expected to be introduced later this year.

"There are several successful businesses in my state who are manufacturing healthy and sustainable products made from hemp," said Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon). "Currently these companies are forced to import their raw materials from Canada and other countries. Changing federal policy to allow American farmers the right to grow hemp right here at home will help these companies thrive, while creating new economic opportunities in Oregon and across the country. The Hemp History Week campaign is a good opportunity to educate other elected officials and the American public about the benefits that the ability to once again grow hemp in America can bring."


Hemp History Week is endorsed by a long list of celebrities and high profile wellness experts, including Dr. Andrew Weil, Alicia Silverstone, Phil Lempert, Ashley Koff, R.D., Brendan Brazier, Elizabeth Kucinich, Ziggy Marley, Alexandra Jamieson, Dar Williams, Michael Franti, John Salley and Kevin Danaher.


This year’s campaign will double in size once again compared to last year’s event, which mobilized supporters of hemp farming nationwide, including hundreds of volunteers who organized over 500 events throughout all fifty states, and generated tens of thousands of letters and postcards to the President and Attorney General in support of hemp farming. Volunteers are being called upon once again to organize events in 2012, with specific details about those planned events to be announced in early April on the Hemp History Week Web site.


Hundreds of natural product retail outlets across the country have signed up to participate in Hemp History Week through promotions and in-store events. Hemp product promotions in retail stores will increase from 400 stores in 2011 to as many as 1,000 participating retail stores this year, including most Whole Foods Market locations in the U.S.


New to the 2012 campaign, this year’s effort will also feature a national restaurant program. Health conscious cafes and restaurants around the country are being invited to participate in Hemp History Week by featuring hemp-infused dishes on their menus during the week of the campaign. Some restaurants will also be hosting special events. "Candle 79 is looking forward to participating in the 3rd annual Hemp History Week this June. We use hemp in many of our favorite menu offerings, including our hemp seed crusted seitan and our famous hemp seed ice-cream desserts. Our chefs love working with hemp seeds, and our customers can’t seem to get enough," says Joy Pierson, owner of Candle 79 & Candle Cafe in New York City."


A renewable resource offering a long list of health and nutritional benefits, hemp is one of the fastest-growing categories in the natural foods industry. Hemp is a rich source of omega-3 and omega-6 essential fatty acids.

(EFAs), providing both super omega-stearidonic acid (SDA) and gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), highly-digestible protein and naturally-occurring vitamins and minerals, such as vitamin E and iron, while being a good source of dietary fiber. It is a complete protein, containing all 10 essential amino acids, with no enzyme inhibitors, making it more digestible by the human body. Hemp seeds are also gluten-free.


Going into its third year, Hemp History Week is an industry-wide effort made possible by the support of leading natural product brands that are known for manufacturing the highest-quality hemp products. Hemp can be used in a wide variety of products, including foods, cosmetics, clothing, building materials, auto parts and many others. The sponsors of Hemp History Week 2012 are Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Living Harvest Foods, Food Should Taste Good, Manitoba Harvest, Nature’s Path Foods, Nutiva and Vega. Sustainable hemp seed, fiber and oil are also used by major companies such as Ford Motors, Patagonia and The Body Shop.

Arran Stephens, founder/CEO of Nature’s Path Foods, North America’s independent, #1 brand of organic breakfast foods, says "We believe our hemp-based cereals, bars and waffles exemplify all of the goodness that hemp has to offer as a nutritious, gluten-free, non-GMO superfood. Nature’s Path is proud to have been part of the growth of the hemp industry since the beginning. This June, we look forward to celebrating America’s rich history with hemp farming, while educating consumers about the benefits of hemp foods. If hemp production was good enough for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (note that the Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper), then it’s good enough for us."

Other U.S. hemp manufacturers have been relentless in their struggle for the right to buy hemp from U.S. farmers. "For nearly ten years, the Bronner family has financially supported efforts to lift the ban on non-drug industrial hemp farming because it is an environmentally-sustainable crop," states David Bronner, President of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, the top-selling brand of natural soap in the U.S. "Despite our efforts, we are forced to continue purchasing the twenty tons of hemp oil that we use annually from Canada. This is a lost opportunity for American farmers and businesses, a situation that is becoming more absurd and outrageous with each growing season that passes."

The HIA estimates that U.S. retail sales of hemp products exceeded $419 million in 2011, yet American companies making hemp products have no choice but to import their raw materials, due to the federal government’s outdated and misguided ban on hemp farming. While demand for hemp products continues to rise, it is becoming a challenge for Canadian growers and processors, currently the primary suppliers of hemp seed and oil to the U.S. market, to keep up and meet that demand.

"Nutiva’s sales have grown at an average annual rate of 42% since 2006. In 2009, 2010 and 2011, we were named by Inc. Magazine as one of the fastest-growing businesses in America," says John W. Roulac, founder and CEO of Nutiva. "By allowing U.S. farmers to grow and sell hemp seed, it will help the entire industry to meet the growing demand for hemp products."

Living Harvest Foods is a global leader in hemp food products. "Our mission is to pioneer delicious hemp foods that are good for people and planet," says Cathy Hearn, President of Living Harvest Foods. "Hemp is a truly remarkable plant that’s packed full of essential nutrients that can improve the way Americans eat. Sourcing hemp from outside the U.S. adds unnecessary costs, which translates into higher retail prices. We want to make this superfood accessible to everyone, and to do that we need Congress to recognize the benefits of a domestic hemp program. There are no valid arguments against it."

To date, thirty-one states have introduced pro-hemp legislation and seventeen have passed legislation, while eight states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia) have already authorized the licensing of farmers to grow the crop. However, despite state authorization to grow hemp, farmers in these states risk raids by federal agents if they plant the crop, due to the failure of federal policy to distinguish oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis (i.e., industrial hemp) from psychoactive varieties.

"My co-founders of Manitoba Harvest and I are proud to have successfully petitioned our government to legalize hemp in Canada over a decade ago. We are very appreciative of the Canadian government’s support and hope that the U.S. government will soon see the opportunities with industrial hemp as well," says Mike Fata, co-founder and CEO of Manitoba Harvest. "With consumer demand for hemp products growing, why shouldn’t American farmers also be allowed to benefit from this huge opportunity?"

For more information on Hemp History Week 2012, please see the completely re-designed campaign Web site at:

SOURCE Hemp Industries Association

The Elkhorn Manifesto

The Elkhorn Manifesto

Researched and Written by:

R. William Davis

July 4, 1996

Louisville, Kentucky

The following article was originally published on which is now an archived website at the following address:

The “Kentucky Marijuana Party” at that time was organized by Robert Paehlke.  According to the archived webpage his contact information is as follows:

Robert Paehlke


phone: 859 835-4117

Robert Paehlke is a long time Marijuana activist and believes  it is time U.S. citizens rise up against the injustice of marijuana laws.

“We should no longer be silent about this issue and should make our views known by using the political system, and should keep up the fight until it is legalized”

An Open Letter to All Americans

The Real Reason the Government Won’t Debate Medical Cannabis and Industrial Hemp Re-legalization

Documented Evidence of a Secret Business and Political Alliance Between the U.S. “Establishment” and the Nazis – Before, During and After World War II – up to the Present.


Before the Gatewood Galbraith for Governor Campaign in 1991, few Kentuckians knew that the plant that the federal government had demonized for over 50 years as “Marijuana – Assassin of Youth,” was, in fact, Cannabis Hemp, the most traded commodity in the world until the mid-1800s, and our state’s number one crop, industry, and most important source of revenue, for over 150 years.

Today, thanks to the efforts of pioneer hemp researchers and public advocates such as Galbraith, Jack Fraizer, Jack Herer, Chris Conrad, Ed Rosenthal, Don Wirtshafter and others, the federal government’s unjustifiable suppression of our state’s right to develop our most valuable and versatile natural resource, is facing increasing opposition from an informed public. Hemp is now recognized as the number one agriculturally renewable raw material in the world, and perhaps the only crop / industry which can guarantee us industrial and economic independence from the trans-national corporations.

“Shadow of the Swastika” is a follow-up to my earlier work, “Cannabis Hemp: the Invisible Prohibition Revealed,” which I wrote and published in support of the Galbraith Campaign. Since publication of that booklet, there has been growing public acceptance of the evidence that Marijuana Prohibition was created in 1937, not to protect society from the “evils of the drug Marijuana,” as the Federal government claimed, but as an act of deliberate economic and industrial sabotage against the re-emerging Industrial Hemp Industry.

Previous investigations by hemp researchers have been limited to the suppression of free-market competition from the hemp industry, and focused on the activities of three prominent members of America’s corporate, industrial and banking establishment during the mid- to late-1930s:

WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST, the newspaper and magazine tycoon.

The expected rebirth of cannabis hemp as a less expensive source of pulp for paper meant his millions of acres of prime timberland, and investment in wood pulp papermaking equipment, would soon be worth much less. In the 1920s, about the same time as the equipment was developed to economically mass-produce raw hemp into pulp and fiber for paper, he began the “Reefer Madness” hoax in his newspaper and magazine publications.

ANDREW MELLON, founder of the Gulf Oil Corporation.

He knew that cannabis hemp was an alternative industrial raw material for the production of thousands of products, including fuel and plastics, which, if allowed to compete in the free-market, would threaten the future profits of the oil companies. As Secretary of the Treasury he created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and appointed his own future nephew-in-law, Harry Anslinger, as director. Anslinger would later use the sensational, and totally fabricated, articles published by Hearst, to push the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 through Congress, which successfully destroyed the rebirth of the cannabis hemp industry.

A prominent member of one Congressional subcommittee who voted in favor of this bill was Joseph Guffey of Pennsylvania, an oil tycoon and former business partner of Andrew Mellon in the Spindletop oil fields in Texas.


which owned the patents on synthetic petrochemicals and industrial processes that promised billions of dollars in future profits from the sale of wood pulp paper, lead additives for gasoline, synthetic fibers and plastics, if hemp could be suppressed. At the time, du Pont family influence in both government and the private sector was unmatched, according to historians and journalists.

This publication, however, reveals documented historical evidence that the suppression of the hemp industry was only one key part of a much larger conspiracy in the 1930s, not only by the three corporate interests named above, but by many others, as well.

Congressional records, FBI reports and investigations by the Justice Department, during the 1930s and 1940s, have already documented evidence of this wider plot. A list of the corporations named include Du Pont, Standard Oil, and General Motors, all of which were proven to be conspiring with Nazi industrial cartels to eliminate competition world-wide and divide among themselves the Earth’s industrial resources and commercial markets, for profitable exploitation.

This conspiracy succeeded. It is now obvious that this lack of serious competition in the industrial raw materials market caused our present – and totally contrived – addiction to petrochemicals. Its success is directly responsible for the most troubling problems we now face in the 1990s; serious damage to our environment, concentration of economic and political power into fewer and fewer hands, and the weakening of the rights of individuals and states to determine their own futures.

It is more and more evident that, given the historical record, the structure of the New World Order is being built upon the Foundation of Marijuana Prohibition, and only the relegalization of free-market hemp competition can save us.

R. William Davis

July 4, 1996

Louisville, Kentucky


To clearly understand the circumstances which existed during the 1930s and 1940s, and are the subject of this booklet, it would be helpful to first put the hemp / petrochemical conflict into historical perspective. The events which took place in the years leading up to World War II were a continuation of a struggle between agricultural and industrial interests that began before the American Revolution, a struggle which has yet to be decided, even today.


The historical record, at least as it has been presented to us in the public school system, is that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. This is not the whole story. The truth of the matter is that it was also a clash between Northern industrialists and Southern agriculturists, over control of the expansion into the newly opened West.

In 1845, Abraham Lincoln wrote, “I hold it a paramount duty of us in the free states due to the union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself, to let the slavery of other states alone.”


Concerning the Western territories, he said “The whole Nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for homes and free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery be planted within them.”


Lincoln was caught in the middle between the Northern industrialists and the Southern agriculturists, who both wanted to dominate Western expansion because of the wealth it offered. The industrialists knew that the agriculturists depended on slavery because cotton, upon which Southern wealth was based, was very labor intensive and required the inexpensive labor that slavery provided. They knew that if the Western lands were declared “free states” then the Southern agriculturists would be unable to compete, and would be forced to leave Western expansion, and its potential profits, to the Northern industrialists.

Quoting “The Irony of Democracy,” by Thomas R. Dye and T. Harmon Zeigler,

“The importance of the Civil War for America’s elite structure was the commanding position that the new industrial capitalists won during the course of the struggle. . . . The economic transformation of the United States from an agricultural to an industrial nation reached the crescendo of a revolution in the second half of the nineteenth century.

“Civil War profits compounded the capital of the industrialists and placed them in a position to dominate the economic life of the nation. Moreover, when the Southern planters were removed from the national scene, the government in Washington became the exclusive domain of the new industrial leaders.”


The Northern industrialists used this increased capital to build the system of transcontinental railways, linking the Northeast with both the South and West. The labor for this undertaking was from the Northeastern Establishment’s own source of cheap labor – recently freed slaves and poor immigrants from Europe and China – who suffered under living conditions which were often little better than those which existed under the Slave System just a few years before.

It was during the years between the Civil War and the beginning of the Twentieth Century that the Northern industrialists altered the role of the American government. Originally established by the Revolution to protect and preserve the lives, property and freedoms of all Americans from repressive government, it was transformed into an agency to protect the economic future of Northern industrialists.

“[T]he industrial elites,” according to Dye and Zeigler, “saw no objection to legislation if it furthered their success in business. Unrestricted competition might prove who was the fittest, but as an added precaution to insure that the industrial capitalists themselves emerged as the fittest, these new elites also insisted upon government subsidies, patents, tariffs, loans, and massive giveaways of land and other natural resources.”


The struggle between Western farmers and the railroads owned by the Northern industrialists is a good example. To protect their interests, citizens created “the Grange,” an organization which helped to enact state laws regulating the “ruthless aggression” of the railroads. In 1877, these laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in the Munn v. Illinois decision. But, a few years later, Justice Stephen A. Field changed the role, and the very definition, of the corporation. He gave a new interpretation to the Fourteenth Amendment that actually gave corporations legal status as citizens . . . as artificial persons.


It was not long after this change in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that John D. Rockefeller, the father of the modern-day corporation, created the great Standard Oil Corporation which, by the late 1880s, gained control over 90% of all the oil refineries in America.


The roots of 20th Century American politics can best be illustrated by the 1896 Presidential Election, won by Republican William McKinley by a landslide. The McKinley campaign was directed by Marcus Alonzo Hanna of Standard Oil and raised a $16,000,000 campaign fund from wealthy fellow industrialists, (an amount that was unmatched in Presidential campaigns until the 1960s). The major theme of the campaign, and one that would echo far into the future, was “what’s good for business is good for the country.”


This emerging political and judicial misuse of power in America was feared by Thomas Jefferson who, in 1787, wrote, “I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they remain chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe they will become corrupt as in Europe.”


It is important to remember that the American Revolution was a clash between the agriculturists in the colonies, and the British industrialists who controlled the government in England. Almost 100 years later the Civil War was fought as a continuation of the same basic struggle, but with the victory going back to the industrialists.

This began the erosion of the American government “of the people, for the people and by the people.” The buying of the 1896 Presidential Election, by Hanna of Standard Oil and the Northern industrial interests, was the next important step on the long road to the American government “of the corporation, for the corporation and by the corporation.”

A few years later, World War I would forge an even closer relationship between corporations and government in the United States, as well as around the world. Anthony Sampson, in his book “The Arms Bazaar,” notes that “the American companies, led by US Steel and du Pont, were transformed by war orders. US Steel, which had absorbed Carnegie’s old steel company, had made average annual profits in the four pre-war years of $105 million, while in the four war years they were $240 million; and du Pont’s average profit went up from $6 million to $58 million. . . .

“Certainly the arms companies had become much richer through the war, and there were widespread suspicions that they were actually trying to prolong it.”


The bottom line is, of course, victory or profit, and in what proportions? To what lengths would this nation’s top industrial leaders go to secure their share of the profits before and during the next “war to end all war?”


1. American Political Tradition, Hofstadter, p. 109. (As reprinted in The Irony of Democracy, Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, p. 72)

2. American Political Tradition, p. 113. (As reprinted in The Irony of Democracy, p. 72)

3. Irony of Democracy, p. 73

4. Ibid., p. 74

5. Ibid., p. 75

6. Ibid., p. 76

7. Ibid., p. 82

8. Ibid., p. 62

9. The Arms Bazaar, Anthony Sampson, p. 65

The Elkhorn Manifesto Part II


“A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . .

“Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there.” – William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937.


A large volume of documentary evidence exists that reveals that many of the richest, most powerful men in the United States, and the giant corporations they controlled, were secretly allied with the Nazis, both before and during World War II, even after war was declared between Germany and America. This alliance began with U.S. corporate investment during the reconstruction of post-World War I Germany in the 1920s and, years later, included financial, industrial and military aid to the Nazis.

On the pages which follow we will review which prominent Americans and corporations were involved, what aid and comfort they gave our nation’s enemies – treasonable offenses during time of war, and investigations into these matters which produced evidence of a US/Nazi corporate conspiracy to bring a fascist state to America, and eliminate competition in the industrial raw materials market in order to force world-wide dependence on oil-based petrochemicals.


Hearst, who was so concerned about the American public’s health and safety on the matter of marijuana use, apparently had no such fears when it came to Hitler and the Nazis. According to journalist George Seldes:

“. . . Hitler had the support of the most widely circulated magazine in history, “Readers Digest,” as well as nineteen big-city newspapers and one of the three great American news agencies, the $220-million Hearst press empire.

“. . . William Randolph Hearst, Sr., . . . was the lord of all the press lords in the United States. The millions who read the Hearst newspapers and magazines and saw Hearst newsreels in the nation’s movie houses had their minds poisoned by Hitler propaganda.

“It was . . . disclosed first to President Roosevelt [by Ambassador Dodd] almost on the day it happened, in September 1934, and it is detailed in the book “Ambassador Dodd’s Diary,” published in 1941, and again in libel-proof documents on file in the courts of the state of New York. William E. Dodd, professor of history [at the University of Chicago], told me about the Hearst sell-out . . .

“According to Ambassador Dodd, Hearst came to take the waters at Bad Nauheim in September 1934, and Dodd somehow learned immediately that Hitler had sent two of his most trusted Nazi propagandists, Hanfstangel and Rosenberg, to ask Hearst how Nazism could present a better image in the United States. When Hearst went to Berlin later in the month, he was taken to see Hitler.”

Seldes reports that a $400,000 a year deal was struck between Hearst and Hitler, and signed by Doctor Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. “Hearst,” continues Seldes, “completely changed the editorial policy of his nineteen daily newspapers the same month he got the money.”

In the court documents filed on behalf of Dan Gillmor, publisher of a magazine named “Friday,” in response to a lawsuit by Hearst, under item 61, he states: “Promptly after this said visit with Adolf Hitler and the making of said arrangements . . . said plaintiff, William Randolph Hearst, instructed all Hearst press correspondents in Germany, including those of INS [Hearst’s International News Service] to report happenings in Germany only in a ‘friendly’ manner. All of such correspondents reporting happenings in Germany accurately and without friendliness, sympathy and bias for the actions of the then German government, were transferred elsewhere, discharged, or forced to resign. . . .”

In the late 1930s, Seldes recounts, when “several sedition indictments [were brought by] the Department of Justice . . . against a score or two of Americans, the defendants included an unusually large minority of newspaper men and women, most of them Hearst employees.”



“Thurman Arnold, as assistant district attorney of the United States, his assistant, Norman Littell, and several Congressional investigations, have produced incontrovertible evidence that some of our biggest monopolies entered into secret agreements with the Nazi cartels and divided the world up among them,” states Seldes in his book, “Facts and Fascism,” published in 1943. “Most notorious of all was Alcoa, the Mellon-Davis-Duke monopoly which is largely responsible for the fact America did not have the aluminum with which to build airplanes before and after Pearl Harbor, while Germany had an unlimited supply.”


Alcoa sabotage of American war production had already cost the U.S. “10,000 fighters or 1,665 bombers,” according to Congressman Pierce of Oregon speaking in May 1941, because of “the effort to protect Alcoa’s monopolistic position. . .”

“If America loses this war,” said Secretary of the Interior [Harold] Ickes, June 26, 1941, “it can thank the Aluminum Corporation of America.”

“By its cartel agreement with I.G. Farben, controlled by Hitler,” writes Seldes, “Alcoa sabotaged the aluminum program of the U.S. air force. The Truman Committee [on National Defense, chaired by then-Senator Harry S. Truman in 1942] heard testimony that Alcoa’s representative, A.H. Bunker, $1-a-year head of the aluminum section of O.P.M., prevented work on our $600,000,000 aluminum expansion program.”



General Motors is included here because, by 1929, the Du Pont Corporation had acquired controlling interest in, and had interlocking directorships with, General Motors.

Irenee du Pont, “the most imposing and powerful member of the clan,” according to biographer and historian Charles Higham, “was obsessed with Hitler’s principles.” “He keenly followed the career of the future Fuhrer in the 1920s, and on September 7, 1926, in a speech to the American Chemical Society, he advocated a race of supermen, to be achieved by injecting special drugs into them in boyhood to make their characters to order.” Higham’s book on this subject, “Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949,” is highly recommended.

Du Pont’s anti-Semitism “matched that of Hitler” and, in 1933, the Du Ponts “began financing native fascist groups in America . . .” one of which Higham identifies as the American Liberty League: “a Nazi organization whipping up hatred of blacks and Jews,” and the “love of Hitler”.

“Financed . . . to the tune of $500,000 the first year, the Liberty League had a lavish thirty-one-room office in New York, branches in twenty-six colleges, and fifteen subsidiary organizations nationwide that distributed fifty million copies of its Nazi pamphlets. . . .

“The Du Ponts’ fascistic behavior was seen in 1936, when Irenee du Pont used General Motors money to finance the notorious Black Legion. This terrorist organization had as its purpose the prevention of automobile workers from unionizing. The members wore hoods and black robes, with skulls and crossbones. They fire-bombed union meetings, murdered union organizers, often by beating them to death, and dedicated their lives to destroying Jews and communists. They linked to the Ku Klux Klan. . . . It was brought out that at least fifty people, many of them blacks, had been butchered by the Legion.”


Du Pont support of Hitler extended into the very heart of the Nazi war machine as well, according to Higham, and several other researchers: “General Motors, under the control of the Du Pont family of Delaware, played a part in collaboration” with the Nazis.

“Between 1932 and 1939, bosses of General Motors poured $30 million into I.G. Farben plants . . .” Further, Higham informs us that by “the mid-1930s, General Motors was committed to full-scale production of trucks, armored cars, and tanks in Nazi Germany.”


Researchers Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, in their book, “Power Inc.,” describe the Du Pont-GM-Nazi relationship in these terms:

“. . . In 1929, [Du Pont-controlled] GM acquired the largest automobile company in Germany, Adam Opel, A.G. This predestined the subsidiary to become important to the Nazi war effort. In a heavily documented study presented to the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly in February 1974, Bradford C. Snell, an assistant subcommittee counsel, wrote:

“GM’s participation in Germany’s preparation for war began in 1935. In that year its Opel subsidiary cooperated with the Reich in locating a new heavy truck facility at Brandenburg, which military officials advised would be less vulnerable to enemy air attacks. During the succeeding years, GM supplied the Wehrmact with Opel “Blitz” trucks from the Brandenburg complex. For these and other contributions to [the Nazis] wartime preparations, GM’s chief executive for overseas operations [James Mooney] was awarded the Order of the German Eagle (first class) by Adolf Hitler.”

Du Pont-GM Nazi collaboration, according to Snell, included the participation of Standard Oil of New Jersey [now Exxon] in one, very important arrangement. GM and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint subsidiary with the giant Nazi chemical cartel, I.G. Farben, named Ethyl G.m.b.H. [now Ethyl, Inc.] which, according to Snell: “provided the mechanized German armies with synthetic tetraethyl fuel [leaded gas]. During 1936-39, at the urgent request of Nazi officials who realized that Germany’s scarce petroleum reserves would not satisfy war demands, GM and Exxon joined with German chemical interests in the erection of the lead-tetraethyl plants. According to captured German records, these facilities contributed substantially to the German war effort: “The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce lead-tetraethyl is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans [Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil] had presented us with the production plants complete with experimental knowledge. Without lead-tetraethyl the present method of warfare would be unthinkable.”


At about the same time the Du Ponts were serving the Nazi cause in Germany, they were involved in a Fascist plot to overthrow the United States government.

“Along with friends of the Morgan Bank and General Motors,” in early 1934, writes Higham, “certain Du Pont backers financed a coup d’etat that would overthrow the President with the aid of a $3 million-funded army of terrorists . . .” The object was to force Roosevelt “to take orders from businessmen as part of a fascist government or face the alternative of imprisonment and execution . . .”

Higham reports that “Du Pont men allegedly held an urgent series of meetings with the Morgans,” to choose who would lead this “bizarre conspiracy.” “They finally settled on one of the most popular soldiers in America, General Smedly Butler of Pennsylvania.” Butler was approached by “fascist attorney” Gerald MacGuire (an official of the American Legion), who attempted to recruit Butler into the role of an American Hitler.

“Butler was horrified,” but played along with MacGuire until, a short time later, he notified the White House of the plot. Roosevelt considered having “the leaders of the houses of Morgan and Du Pont” arrested, but feared that “it would create an unthinkable national crisis in the midst of a depression and perhaps another Wall Street crash.” Roosevelt decided the best way to defuse the plot was to expose it, and leaked the story to the press.

“The newspapers ran the story of the attempted coup on the front page, but generally ridiculed it as absurd and preposterous.” But an investigation by the Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities – 74th Congress, first session, House of Representatives, Investigation of Nazi and other propaganda – was begun later that same year.

“It was four years,” continues Higham, “before the committee dared to publish its report in a white paper that was marked for “restricted circulation.” They were forced to admit that “certain persons made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country . . . [The] committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler.” This admission that the entire plan was deadly in intent was not accompanied by the imprisonment of anybody. Further investigations disclosed that over a million people had been guaranteed to join the scheme and that the arms and munitions necessary would have been supplied by Remington, a Du Pont subsidiary.”


The names of important individuals and groups involved in the conspiracy were suppressed by the committee, but later revealed by Seldes, Philadelphia Record reporter Paul French, and Jules Archer, author of the book, “The Plot to Seize the White House.” Included were John W. Davis (attorney for the J.P. Morgan banking group), Robert Sterling Clark (Wall Street broker and heir to the Singer sewing machine fortune), William Doyle (American Legion official), and the American Liberty League (backed by executives from J.P. Morgan and Co., Rockefeller interests, E.F. Hutton, and Du Pont-controlled General Motors).



“On November 23, 1937,” states Higham, “representatives of General Motors held a secret meeting in Boston with Baron Manfred von Killinger, who was . . . in charge of West Coast espionage [for the Nazis], and Baron von Tipplekirsch, Nazi consul general and Gestapo leader in Boston. This group signed a joint agreement showing total commitment to the Nazi cause for the indefinite future. . . .”


Seldes describes the plotters as “the great owners and rulers of America who planned world domination through political and military Fascism” including “several leading American industrialists, members of the Congress of the United States, and representatives of large business and political organizations . . .”

He obtained the text of the agreement, and published it in his newsletter, “In Fact,” on July 13, 1942. The plan “goes much further than the mere cartel conspiracies of Big Business of both countries,” writes Seldes, “because it has political clauses and points to a bigger conspiracy of money and politicians such as helped betray Norway and France and other lands to the Nazi machine. The most powerful fortress in America is the production monopolies, but its betrayal would involve, as it did in France, the participation of some of the most powerful figures of the political as well as the industrial world.”



“On February 27, 1942,” according to Higham, “Arnold, with documents stuffed under his arms, . . . strode into the lion’s den of Standard at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. Just behind him were Secretary of the Navy Franklin Knox and Secretary of the Army Henry L. Stimson.” They confronted Standard official William Farish and “Arnold sharply laid down his charges” that “by continuing to favor Hitler in rubber deal and patent arrangements,” Standard Oil “had acted against the interests of the American government . . . suggested a fine of $1.5 million and a consent decree whereby Standard would turn over for the duration all the patents” in question.

“Farish rejected the proposal on the spot. He pointed out that Standard” was also selling the U.S. a “high percentage” of the fuel being used by the Army, Navy, and Air Force “making it possible for America to win the war. Where would America be without it?”

Blackmail? Yes, says Higham. And effective. Arnold was finally reduced to asking the oil company official “to what Standard Oil would agree. After all, there had to be at least token punishment. . . . Arnold, Stimson, and Knox soon realized they had no power to compare with that of Standard.”

The price Standard Oil “agreed” to pay for its crime? A modest fine of a few thousand dollars divided up among ten defendants. “Farish paid $1,000, or a quarter of one week’s salary, for having betrayed America.”

In New Jersey, charges of “criminal conspiracy with the enemy” were filed against Standard, then “dropped in return for Standard releasing its patents and paying the modest fine.” But Arnold, and his ally, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, weren’t finished with Standard Oil just yet. They approached Senator Truman, chairman of the Senate Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program. “With great enthusiasm Give “em Hell Harry embarked on a series of hearings in March 1942, in order to disclose the truth about Standard.”

Between the 26th and the 28th of March, 1942, Arnold “produced documents showing that Standard and Farben in Germany had literally carved up the world markets, with oil and chemical monopolies all over the map,” according to Higham.


Mintz and Cohen describe the confrontation:

“Four months after the United States entered World War II, the Justice Department obtained an indictment of Exxon and its principal officers for having made arrangements, starting in the late 1920s with I.G. Farben involving patent sharing and division of world markets. Jersey Standard agreed not to develop processes for the manufacture of synthetic rubber; in exchange, Farben agreed not to compete in the American petroleum market. After war broke out in Europe, but before the attack on Pearl Harbor, executives of Standard Oil and Farben, at a meeting in Holland, established a “modus vivendi” for continuing the arrangements in event of war between the United States and Germany – although the arrangements interfered with the ability of the United States to make synthetic rubber desperately needed after it entered the war in December 1941. Rather than face a criminal trial, Exxon and the indicted executives entered no-contest pleas – the legal equivalent of guilty pleas – and were fined the minor sums which were the maximum amounts permitted by law. A few days later, on March 26, 1942, the Senate Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program held a hearing at which Thurman Arnold, chief of the Antitrust Division, put into the record documents on which the [criminal] indictment had been based, including a memo from a Standard Oil official on the “modus vivendi” agreed to in Holland. After the hearing, the committee chairman, Harry S. Truman, characterized the arrangements as treasonable.”


Another source book on this subject of US / Nazi corporate activities is “The Secret War Against the Jews,” by Mark Aarons and John Loftus. Here is their version of the events:

“Before the war Standard of New Jersey had forged a synthetic oil and rubber cartel with the Nazi-controlled I.G. Farben,” which “worked well until the United States joined the war in 1941. . . . Next to the Rockefellers, I.G. Farben owned the largest share of stock in Standard Oil of New Jersey. Among other things, Standard had provided Farben with its synthetic rubber patents and technical knowledge, while Farben had kept its patents to itself, under strict instructions from the Nazi government.”

Evidence which Thurman Arnold turned over to the Truman Committee, which Truman would declare “treasonous,” included “Standard’s 1939 letter renewing its agreement, which made it clear that the Rockefellers’ company was prepared to work with the Nazis whether their own government was at war with the Third Reich or not. Truman’s Senate Committee on the National Defense was outraged and began to probe into the whole scandalous arrangement, much to the discomfort of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Suddenly, however, the whole matter was dropped.

“There was a reason for Rockefeller’s escape: blackmail. According to the former intelligence officers we interviewed on this point, the blackmail was simple and powerful: The Dulles brothers [John Foster, later Secretary of State, and Allen, later director of the CIA] had one of their clients threaten to interrupt the U.S. oil supply during wartime.”

When confronted by Arnold on the Standard – Farben arrangement “Standard executives made it clear that the entire U.S. war effort was fueled by their oil and it could be stopped. . . . The American government had no choice but to go along if it wanted to win the war.”


July 13, 1944, Ralph W. Gallagher, attorney for Standard Oil, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government’s seizure of the contested patents. “On November 7, 1945, Judge Charles E. Wyzanski gave his verdict,” according to Higham. “He decided that the government had been entitled to seize the patents. Gallagher appealed. On September 22, 1947, Judge Charles Clark delivered the final word on the subject. He said, “Standard Oil can be considered an enemy national in view of its relationships with I.G. Farben after the United States and Germany had become active enemies.” The appeal was denied.”


One aspect of this Standard – I.G. Farben relationship, revealed in testimony during the Patents Committee hearings, chaired by Senator Homer T. Bone in May 1942, is of interest to those who seek direct evidence of a conspiracy by big oil companies to suppress development of synthetic substitutes to petrochemical products such as industrial chemicals, aircraft lubricants and fuel, all of which can be made from hemp:

“On May 6th, John R. Jacobs, Jr., of the Attorney General’s department, testified that Standard had interfered with the American explosives industry by blocking the use of a method of producing synthetic ammonia. As a result of its deals with Farben, the United States had been unable to get the use of this vital process even after Pearl Harbor. Also, the United States had been restricted in techniques of producing hydrogen from natural gas and from obtaining paraflow, a product used for airplane lubrication at high altitudes. . . .”

On August 7th, “Texas oil operator C.R. Starnes appeared to testify that Standard had blocked him at every turn in his efforts to produce synthetic rubber after Pearl Harbor. . . .”

On August 12th, “John R. Jacobs reappeared in an Army private’s uniform (he had been inducted the day before) to bring up another disagreeable matter: Standard had also, in league with Farben, restricted production of methanol, a wood alcohol that was sometimes used as motor fuel.” (16)

The restriction against methanol production apparently did not apply to the Nazis, however. “As late as April 1943,” Higham reveals, “General Motors in Stockholm [Sweden] was reported as trading with the enemy. . . . Further documents show that, as with Ford, repairs on German army trucks and conversion from gasoline to wood-gasoline production were being handled by GM in Switzerland.”


The use of hemp as a source of methanol was known to the Nazis, revealed in the pamphlet “The Humorous Hemp Primer,” published in Berlin, also in 1943. This document, recently re-published in the 1995 edition of “Hemp and the Marijuana Conspiracy: The Emperor Wears No Clothes,” by veteran hemp conspiracy researcher Jack Herer, states that:

“Crops should not only provide food in large quantities, they can provide raw materials for industry. . . . Among such raw materials of especially high value is hemp . . .

“The woody part of this large plant is not to be thrown out, since it can easily be used for surface coatings for the finest floors. It also provides paper and cardboard, building materials and wall paneling. Further processing will even produce wood sugar and wood gas. . . .

“Anyone who grows hemp today need not fear a lack of a market, because hemp, as useful as it is, will be purchased in unlimited amounts.”


The Nazis obviously considered hemp a vital war material that could be used to produce methanol, or “wood gas,” at the same time, in 1943, that Du Pont-controlled General Motors in Switzerland was “converting from gasoline to wood-gasoline production.” This, taken into consideration along with the earlier statement that Standard Oil-I.G. Farben had “restricted production of methanol” and the GM-Standard Oil-I.G. Farben joint venture, Ethyl, Inc., whose profitability depended on the production of lead-tetraethyl for oil-based petrochemical gasoline – in direct competition with the alternative methanol, or “wood gas,” certainly opens new avenues of investigation into the existence of a conspiracy against hemp as an alternative, and competing, industrial raw material, by these very same corporations which sold America out to the Nazis for profit and control of world resources and markets.

“Just after Pearl Harbor,” writes Seldes, “the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Thurman Arnold, issued a sensational report of the sabotage of the national [war production] program, the first report naming the practices which were later to be referred to as the treason of big business in wartime. Said Mr. Arnold:

“Looking back over 10 months of defense effort we can now see how much it has been hampered by the attitude of powerful basic industries who have feared to expand their production because expansion would endanger their future control of industry.

“Anti-trust investigations during the past year have shown that there is not an organized basic industry in the United States which has not been restricting production by some device or other in order to avoid what they call “ruinous overproduction after the war”.”


By “ruinous overproduction,” of course, they meant free-market competition. So, to question the existence of an industrial conspiracy against competition, during the 1930s and 1940s, is pointless. It has long been totally documented by volumes of evidence, available in the public record. And among this list of convicted corporate conspirators are murderers, racists, pro-Nazi collaborators, blackmailers and American Fascists who plotted at least one armed take-over of the U.S. government. And the list is not yet complete.


Henry Ford, writes Higham, “admired Hitler from the beginning, when the future Fuhrer was a struggling and obscure fanatic. He shared with Hitler a fanatical hatred of Jews.”

“Ford’s book “The International Jew” was issued in 1927. A virulent anti-Semitic tract, it was still being distributed in Latin America and the Arab countries as late as 1945. Hitler admired the book and it influenced him deeply. Visitors to Hitler’s headquarters at the Brown House in Munich noticed a large photograph of Henry Ford hanging in his office. Stacked high on the table outside were copies of Ford’s book. As early as 1923,” when Hitler heard that Ford was planning to run for President, he “told an interviewer from the “Chicago-Tribune,” “I wish that I could send some of my shock troops to Chicago and other big American cities to help”.”

As late as 1940, Ford Motor Company “refused to build aircraft engines for England and instead built supplies of the 5-ton military trucks that were the backbone of German army transportation.”


The Ford Motor Company was also aware of the potential of hemp as an alternative industrial resource, devoting many years research to the subject.

In a 1989 ABC Radio broadcast, Hugh Downs reported that in the 1930s, “the Ford Motor Company also saw a future in biomass fuels. Ford operated a successful biomass conversion plant that included hemp at their Iron Mountain facility in Michigan. Ford engineers extracted methanol, charcoal fuel, tar, pitch, ethyl acetate, and creosote – all fundamental ingredients for modern industry, and now supplied by oil-related industries. . . . Henry Ford’s experiments with methanol promised cheap, readily-available fuel.”


As reported in “Popular Mechanics” in December, 1941, Ford’s research represented “an industrial revolution in progress . . . a revolution in materials that will affect every home.”


So, it is possible, even likely, that Ford and General Motors conversion “from gasoline to wood-gasoline production” for Nazi Germany, as earlier reported by Higham, involved at least some consideration of hemp as a resource, if not actual production of “wood-gas” from hemp. After all, Ford had already committed several years and significant research dollars to the subject.

The implication of methanol fuel patents, hemp industry research and production facilities, all in the hands of this cabal of Nazi-allied American corporations, during a proven period of anti-competition conspiracies, and wartime blackmail against the U.S. government, should provide additional support for the hemp conspiracy theories. The fact is that Nazi Germany recognized hemp as a vital war material – one which, just before America’s entrance into World War II, was positioned to compete in the free-market against the products controlled by the Pro-Nazi American corporations. Unrestricted expansion of United States industrial hemp production threatened not only the profits of these treasonous corporations, but the degree of their control over America’s production of vital war materials.

This view of hemp, not as a “dangerous drug” but as a vital war material, was acknowledged by the Kentucky Legislature a little over 100 years before the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. In 1841, according to Professor James F. Hopkins, author of “A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky,” published by the University of Kentucky Press in 1951:

“When the farmers of Woodford County [KY] assembled in October, 1841, to consider a program of hemp production for the navy, they only went as far as to express an opinion that the government should employ a rope spinner in Kentucky for the purpose of converting the fiber into yarns, which could be transported much more cheaply and safely than the bulky raw material. The Committee on Agriculture of the Kentucky House of Representatives inquired into the matter early in 1842 . . .

“Both houses of the General Assembly sent to the Senators and Congressmen from Kentucky a request that they use their “best exertions” to have established in the state one or more agencies for the inspection and manufacture of hemp for the navy. A select committee of Congress, appointed to consider the resolutions from Kentucky, reported three resolutions of its own: that the navy be directed to construct a factory at Louisville “for the purpose of depositing and manufacturing . . . such hempen fabrics of domestic water-rotted hemp as the public service may require”; that inspectors be appointed to test the fiber that might be offered for sale; and that, after due notice to the public, purchase of the necessary amount of fiber be made at the factory. The Committee contended that its plan would build up during peacetime a source of hemp which would be vitally important in case of war, encourage American agriculture and manufactures, and decrease the unfavorable balance of trade.”


[NOTE: For many years we Kentuckians have had a good deal of our heritage and history buried beneath a thick layer of propaganda from a source of power and control in this country which knows neither honor nor justice. Now, we are learning the truth. Our history as a state built upon the foundation of a long- and dishonestly- outlawed industry endures.]


Even after Pearl Harbor, ITT was working for the Nazis, reports Higham: “. . . the German army, navy, and air force contracted with ITT for the manufacture of switchboards, telephones, alarm gongs, buoys, air raid warning devices, radar equipment, and thirty thousand fuses per month for artillery shells used to kill British and American troops.”

ITT also “supplied ingredients for the rocket bombs that fell on London,” and other devices as well, without which “it would have been impossible for the German air force to kill American and British troops, for the German army to fight the Allies in Africa, Italy, France, and Germany, for England to have been bombed, or for Allied ships to have been attacked at sea.”


In 1938, “following a series of meetings with Luftwaffe chief Herman Goring, [ITT founder and chairman Sosthenes] Behn encouraged ITT’s Lorenz subsidiary to purchase 28 percent of the Focke-Wulf firm, manufacturer of the bombers that were to sink so many Allied ships during the war,” according to researcher and author Jim Hougan.


Anthony Sampson, in “The Sovereign State of ITT,” reports on what is perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the US/Nazi corporate partnership, war reparations:

“. . . ITT now presents itself as the innocent victim of the Second World War, and has been handsomely recompensed for its injuries. In 1967, nearly thirty years after the events, ITT actually managed to obtain $27 million in compensation from the American government, for war damage to Focke-Wulf plants – on the basis that they were American property bombed by Allied bombers.”


The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission was responsible for this payment to ITT, and other U.S. corporations as well.

Bradford Snell reports that “After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing. By 1967 GM had collected more than $33 million in reparations and Federal tax benefits for damages to its warplane and motor vehicle properties in formerly Axis territories . . . Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne.”



Contemporary history records Allen Dulles as one of America’s top spymasters, from his early days in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in World War II, to his position as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the 1950s and early 1960s (until President John F. Kennedy fired him over the Bay of Pigs disaster in 1961), and finally to his membership on the controversial Warren Commission, which investigated President Kennedy’s assassination. Until recently, his pivotal role in promoting a U.S. corporate relationship with the Nazis was little known. Loftus and Aarons describe the post-World War I role of Allen, and his brother, John Foster, in the following terms:

“We first turn to Dulles’s creation of international finance networks for the benefit of the Nazis. In the beginning, moving money into the Third Reich was quite legal. Lawyers saw to that. And Allen and his brother John Foster were not just any lawyers. They were international finance specialists for the powerful Wall Street law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. . . .

“The Dulles brothers were the ones who convinced American businessmen to avoid U.S. government regulation by investing in Germany. It began with the Versailles Treaty, in which they played no small role. After World War I the defeated German government promised to pay war reparations to the Allies in gold, but Germany had no gold. It had to borrow the gold from Sullivan & Cromwell’s clients in the United States. Nearly 70 percent of the money that flowed into Germany during the 1930s came from investors in the United States, many of them Sullivan & Cromwell clients. . .

“Foster Dulles, as a member of the board of I.G. Farben, seems to have had little difficulty in getting along with whoever was in charge. Some of our sources insist that both Dulles brothers made substantial but indirect contributions to the Nazi party as the price of continued influence inside the new German order. . . .”



1. Facts and Fascism, George Seldes, p. 122

2. Trading with the Enemy, Charles Higham, p. 167

3. Even the Gods Can’t Change History, Seldes, pp. 140-144

4. Facts and Fascism, p. 68

5. Ibid., p. 262

6. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 162-165

7. Ibid., p. 166

8. Power, Inc., Morton and Mintz, pp. 497-499

9. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 163-165

10. The Plot to Seize the White House, Jules Archer, Hawthorn Books, 1973 (Quoted from It’s A Conspiracy, National Insecurity Council, EarthWorks Press, 1992, pp. 179-184)

11. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 167-168

12. Facts and Fascism, pp. 68-70

13. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 45-46

14. Power, Inc, pp. 499-500

15. The Secret War Against The Jews, Aarons and Loftus, pp. 44-65

15. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 61-62

16. Ibid., pp. 49-52

17. Ibid., p. 176

18. The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer, pp. 127-130

19. One Thousand Americans, Seldes, pp. 142-143

20. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 154-156

21. Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do, p. 734

22. Popular Mechanics Magazine, Vol. 76, No. 6, Dec. 1941

(The Emperor Wears No Clothes, 1995 edition, p. 199)

23. A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky, Professor James F. Hopkins,

University of Kentucky Press, 1951

24. Trading with the Enemy, p. 99

25. Spooks, Jim Hougan, pp. 423-424

26. The Sovereign State of ITT, Anthony Sampson, p. 47

(Power, Inc., pp. 500-501)

27. GM and the Nazis, by Bradford C. Snell, Ramparts Magazine, June 1974, pp. 14-16 (Democracy for the Few, Michael Parenti, pp. 91-92)

28. The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 55-60

The Elkhorn Manifesto Part III


“Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt


“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power.

As mentioned earlier, the secret U.S./Nazi corporate alliance during World War II was the result of substantial American investment in post-World War I Germany. In order to protect these investments, and the accumulating profits, the U.S. multinational corporations remained an important part of the Nazi war machine until the final defeat of Germany in 1945. What effect did the end of World War II have on this faction of American Nazi collaborators?

In this section we will review the evidence, much of it from recently de-classified documents, which this pro-Nazi faction, rather than facing charges of high treason, became an integral part of the United States national security apparatus, extending its fascist influence in both foreign and domestic policies and, in effect, creating what has been referred to as America’s “Invisible Government.” The excuse, of course, was Communism.


Aarons and Loftus’ research, which documents the Dulles brothers’ pro-Nazi activities, did not go unnoticed. “Before his death, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg granted one of the authors an interview. Justice Goldberg had served in U.S. intelligence during World War II. Although he said little in public, he had collected information on the Dulles boys’ activities over the years. His verdict was blunt. ‘The Dulles brothers were traitors.’ They had betrayed their country, by giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.”


Much of what is now known about the activities of the Dulles brothers and other American Nazi collaborators in banking and industry came as a result of a top-secret joint U.S.-British intelligence program known as the Ultra Project. “Prior to the United States’ entry into the war,” write Loftus and Aarons, “Roosevelt permitted British intelligence to wiretap American targets.

“According to our sources in the intelligence community, the area of coverage included a good bit of the New York financial district, several floors of Rockefeller Plaza, part of the RCA Building, two prominent clubs, and various shipping firms. . . .

“The wiretap unit reported to Sir William Stephenson, a Canadian electronics genius better known by his code name, “Intrepid.” From his headquarters in the Rockefeller building, Stephenson’s job was to identify U.S. companies that were aiding the Nazis.”


“Several months before the United States declared war,” continue Loftus and Aarons, “Bill Donovan invited Allen Dulles to head up the New York branch of the Office of the Coordinator of Information (COI), President Roosevelt’s new intelligence agency and the precursor to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Its primary mission was to collect information against the Nazis and their collaborators. In other words, Dulles was asked to inform on his own clients in New York. . .

“Roosevelt had approved his selection as head of the COI Manhattan branch because he wanted Dulles where the British wiretappers could keep an eye on him. . . .

“One floor below Dulles was Stephenson’s wiretap shop. Inside Dulles’s operation was one of Roosevelt’s spies, Arthur Goldberg . . .” who, “confirmed . . . that Dulles’s appointment was a setup. . . .

“Roosevelt was giving Dulles enough rope to hang himself. From Stephenson’s Manhattan wiretaps, it is known that Dulles was continuing to work with his German business clients, who wanted to remove Hitler and install a puppet of their own who would make peace with the West while forging an alliance against Stalin. It was to be a kinder, gentler Third Reich, favorably disposed to American financial interests. . . .


“The wiretap evidence against Dulles originally was collected by a special section of Operation Safehaven, the U.S. Treasury Department’s effort to trace the movement of stolen Nazi booty towards the end of the war. Roosevelt and Treasury Secretary Henry Morganthau had set up Dulles by giving him the one assignment – intelligence chief in Switzerland – where he would be most tempted to aid his German clients with their money laundering.”

Roosevelt had one thing in mind: “The sudden release of the Safehaven intercepts would force a public outcry to bring treason charges against those British and American businessmen who aided the enemy in time of war.” Among the targets were Allen Dulles, Henry Ford, and other U.S. industrialists.


The plan failed, however, due to Dulles being “tipped off . . . that he was under surveillance” in time to cover his tracks. One possible source of the leak was Vice President Henry Wallace, “who constantly shared information with his brother-in-law, the Swiss minister in Washington during the war.”

“Wallace,” the authors reveal, “gave many details of his secret meetings with Roosevelt to the Swiss diplomat.” The problem was that, at the time, the Nazis “had recruited the head of the Swiss secret service.”

It is, perhaps, no coincidence that Roosevelt dropped Wallace during the 1944 election, choosing instead Senator Harry S. Truman as his new running mate.



“After the Nazis” 1943 defeat at Stalingrad,” write Loftus and Aarons, “various Nazi businessmen realized they were on the losing side and made plans to evacuate their wealth. The Peron government in Argentina was receiving the Nazi flight capital with open arms, and Dulles helped it hide the money. . . .

“The Guinness Book of Records lists the missing Reich bank treasure [estimated at $2.5 billion dollars] as the greatest unsolved bank robbery in history. Where did it go? . . . .

“According to our source, the bulk of the treasure was simply shipped a very short distance across Austria and through the Brenner Pass into Italy. Dulles’s contacts were waiting at the Vatican. The German-Vatican connection was how Allen Dulles and the Nazi industrialists planned to get away with it. . . .”


The effort was successful, according to the authors, who state that the “vast bulk of the wealth of the Nazi empire” which “disappeared before the end of World War II” reappeared “within a decade in the hands of the same men who financed Hitler’s war against the Jews. Allen Dulles’s clients were not defeated, only inconvenienced.” The authors identify two of Dulles’s accomplices as James Jesus Angleton and his father, Hugh Angleton. The Angletons were members of X-2, the OSS counterintelligence branch in Italy, in 1943.

Like Dulles, Hugh Angleton was financially involved with Axis powers. He was the European representative for National Cash Register in Italy before the war and business associate of Dulles. When World War II broke out, the authors write,

“. . . Angleton was crushed financially as all his investments were in enemy hands. “Like Dulles’s clients, he wanted his money back. Like Dulles, Hugh offered his services to the OSS.” With high-placed contacts in Mussolini’s Interior Ministry, Hugh was accepted and “promoted rapidly in U.S. intelligence. He became second in command to Colonel Clifton Carter, the OSS commander in Italy at the end of World War II.”


Perhaps the most controversial information which is now emerging with the release of recently declassified documents concerning World War II, is the role of the Vatican, both in its pre-war German investments, and its role in helping Nazi war criminals escape justice after the war. Concerning the Vatican-German investments, Loftus and Aarons are quite clear:


“That the Vatican encouraged such investments and even donated money to Hitler himself cannot be denied. A German nun, Sister Pascalina, was present at its creation. In the early 1920s she was the housekeeper for Archbishop of the Vatican-Nazi connection . . . Eugenio Pacelli, then the papal nuncio in Munich. Sister Pascalina vividly recalls receiving Adolf Hitler late one night and watching the archbishop give Hitler a large amount of Church money.”

In addition, Eugenio Pacelli  “later convinced the Vatican to invest millions of dollars in the rising German economy, money from the Vatican’s land settlement that ended the Pope’s claim of sovereignty over territory outside the walls of Vatican City. It was Pacelli who negotiated the Concordat with Germany and then had to deal with the consequences of his own mistakes when he became pope on the eve of World War II.


“The Vatican and the Dulles brothers had the same problem. Once their money was in Hitler’s hands, how would they get it back?”

The authors interviewed “a former colonel in U.S. Military Intelligence who specialized in tracing enemy assets. He claimed that only a tiny portion of the Reichbank’s gold ingots actually reached the Vatican Bank, while the rest was held in cooperative banks in Belgium, Liechtenstein, and especially Switzerland.” It was only necessary to transfer the paperwork on the gold, not the gold itself. Since, by that time, Dulles knew his telegraph communications were being monitored by the British wiretap operation in New York, he instead used couriers to “ensure absolute secrecy in moving the foreign currency and the ownership documents out of Switzerland . . . special agents of the Vatican who had diplomatic immunity to move back and forth across both Nazi and Allied lines. . . .”


“. . . . The Vatican’s eminence grise for Balkan intelligence, the Bosnian-Croat priest Krunoslav Draganovic, was involved in transporting large quantities of Nazi booty, especially gold bullion, from Austria to the safety of the Holy See with the help of the Dulles-Angleton clique in Rome. Some of the booty was transported in truck convoys run by British troops. Other shipments were carried in U.S. Army jeeps provided to Father Draganovic so that he could conduct “pastoral visits” on behalf of the Vatican.

“Another ardent Nazi propagandist and agent, Slovenian bishop Gregory Rozman, was sent to Bern with the help of Dulles’s friends in U.S. intelligence. Declassified U.S. intelligence files confirm that Bishop Rozman was suspected of trying to arrange the transfer of huge quantities of Nazi-controlled gold and Western currency that had been discreetly secreted in Swiss banks during the war. For a few months the Allies prevented Rozman from gaining access to this treasure, but then the way was mysteriously cleared. In fact, the Dulles-Vatican connection had fixed it, and before too long the bishop obtained the loot for his Nazi friends, who were hiding in Argentina.

“Such instances turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg. It has long been acknowledged that it was Allen Dulles who tipped off General Patton about the buried German treasure that lay in the path of the U.S. Third Army. Patton explicitly urged General Eisenhower to conceal as much of the gold as possible, but his advice was refused.

“Our sources claim that Dulles and his colleagues exerted a great deal of influence to ensure that Western investments in Nazi Germany were not seized by the Allies as reparations for the Jews. After all, much of “Hitler’s Gold” had originally belonged to the bankers in London and New York. The . . . captured Nazi loot went underground. . . .

“In the cause of anticommunism, and to retrieve its own investments in Germany, the Vatican agreed to become part of Dulles’s smuggling window, through which the Nazis and their treasure could be moved to safety.”


On April 12th, 1945, Roosevelt died, and Truman became President. May 7th, Nazi Germany surrendered after the suicide of Adolf Hitler. September 2nd, Japan surrendered.

World War II finally ended, but at the cost of more than 35,000,000 lives, over half that amount civilians. The death toll for the United States was 294,000.


The Elkhorn Manifesto Part IV


“Dulles and some of his friends volunteered for postwar service with the government not out of patriotism but of necessity,” according to Loftus and Aarons. “They had to be in positions of power to suppress the evidence of their own dealings with the Nazis. The Safehaven investigation was quickly stripped from Treasury . . . and turned over to the State Department. There Dulles’s friends shredded the index to the interlocking corporations and blocked further investigations.

“Dulles had this goal in mind: Not a single American businessman was ever going to be convicted of treason for helping the Nazis. None ever was, despite the evidence. According to one of our sources in the intelligence community, the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps had two large “Civilian Internment Centers” in Occupied Germany, code named “Ashcan” and “Dustbin.” The CIC had identified and captured a large number of U.S. citizens who had stayed in Germany and aided the Third Reich all through World War II. The evidence of their treason was overwhelming. The captured German records were horribly incriminating.

“Yet Victor Wohreheide, the young Justice Department attorney responsible for preparing the treason trials, suddenly ordered the prisoners’ release. All of the Nazi collaborators were allowed to return to the United States and reclaim their citizenship. At the same time, another Justice Department attorney, O. John Rogge, who dared to make a speech about Nazi collaborators in the United States was quickly fired. However, the attorney who buried the treason cases was later promoted to special assistant attorney general.

“Dulles and his clients had won. The proof is in the bottom line. Forty years after World War II, Fortune magazine published a list of the hundred richest men in the world. There were no Jews on the list. The great fortunes of the Rothschilds and Warburgs had been diminished to insignificance by the Depression, the Nazis, and World War II.

“Near the top of the list were several multibillionaires who had been prominent members of Hitler’s inner circle. A few even had served time in Allied prisons as Nazi war criminals, but they were all released quickly. The bottom line is that the Nazi businessmen survived the war with their fortunes intact and rebuilt their industrial empires to become the richest men in the world. Dulles’s clients got away with it. President Roosevelt’s dream of putting the Nazis’ moneymen on trial died with him.”

England also failed to see justice done, according to the authors: “The British authorities in Germany ordered the U.S. Army to release all of the VIP British Nazis and hand over the evidence against them. Even before Roosevelt’s death, Churchill had already begun to withdraw from his commitment to prosecute Nazis.” The reason?” Too many British industries might be seized as Nazi fronts. Too many upper-class collaborators might have to be prosecuted. The Germans were defeated, and the Soviets were now the enemy.

“Funding for British war crimes investigations suddenly dried up. Nazi bankers such as Herman Abs were released from prison to work as economic advisers in the British zone of Germany. The history of British “efforts” to punish Nazis after the war is aptly summarized in Tom Bower’s book, “The Pledge betrayed”. . . .

“The pattern was repeated all over the remnants of the Third Reich. Despite direct orders from President Truman and General Eisenhower, I.G. Farben, the citadel of the Nazi industrialists, was never dismantled. Dulles’s clients demanded, and received, Allied compensation for bomb damage to their factories in Germany. Only a few of the top Nazis were executed. Most of the rest were released from prison within a few years. Others, would go virtually unpunished. No one ever investigated the Nazi sympathizers in Western intelligence that had made it all possible.”


As we have seen, the American industrialists who did business with the Nazis were in no way inconvenienced by war crimes trials, and even received compensation for damages to their Nazi war plants. Some Nazi industrialists were charged and convicted by the Nuremberg war crimes trials but, in their book, “The American Establishment”, authors Leonard and Mark Silk observe that in the late 1940s “the United States and its leaders faced an agonizing moral problem in coming to terms with those German industrialists who had willingly done business with the Nazis and who were now just as willing to do business with the Americans in the reconstruction of Germany. The problem was dramatized when those German industrialists who had been convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg were all released from Landsberg prison in early 1951, their sentences commuted by the American High Commissioner [of German Occupation], John J. McCloy.

“. . . . Whatever the motivation,” the authors continue, “the blanket release of the convicted industrialists was taken within Germany – and by them – as a sign that businessmen were not to be seriously blamed for their involvement in matters for which others were hanged or suffered long imprisonment.”


The motivation for the mass release of imprisoned Nazi war criminals is described in the book, “The New Germany and the Old Nazis,” by T.H. Tetens, an expert in German affairs.

Tetens observes that in “1950, when Washington showed its eagerness to create a new German army of 500,000 men, the SS [at that time reorganized into a neo-Nazi front group called HIAG, which stands for “mutual assistance,” a so-called veterans organization], together with the old Wehrmacht officers, started an all-out campaign for the immediate release of all war criminals. It was a superbly organized blackmail action, enjoying wide support from the public, from all parties, and carried toward success by Dr. Adenauer’s astute maneuverings.

“The Chancellor suggested an inconspicuous way to solve the problem with “parole,” “sick leave,” and other roundabout methods. The more the U.S. High Commission in Germany showed leniency, however, the stronger the pressure became: either “all so-called war criminals are released or there will be no German army.” American diplomats followed Dr. Adenauer’s plan to feed the nationalistic monster piecemeal. Every few days we quietly released one or two more from prison – the Krupps, the I.G. Farben directors, and dozens of former Wehrmacht Generals. On friendly advice from Washington, the British and the French, extremely reluctant, had to follow suit. When the supply dried up, there remained behind bars only the SS, the mass murderers from Dachau, Belsen, and Buchenwald, and the toughs from the Waffen SS who had massacred American, British, and Canadian prisoners of war. This put High Commissioner John McCloy in a most embarrassing position. . . .”

Tetens explains how Chancellor Adenauer helped High Commissioner McCloy and the U.S. State Department avoid this embarrassment: Adenauer “suggested the formation of a review board, with three German members sitting in and having equal voice in making recommendations. The whole procedure was to be shrouded in secrecy, and it was decided that the names of those released should not be revealed to the public. In this way the last few hundred “poor devils”, those SS mass killers and sadists, were quietly set free within two or three years.”


Christopher Simpson, in his extensively documented book on the subject of U.S. recruitment of Nazis, “Blowback,” goes into more detail of the backgrounds of those released:

“The beneficiaries of this act included, for example, all of the convicted concentration camp doctors; all of the top judges who had administered the Nazis’ “special courts” and dozens of similar cases. In addition, “McCloy’s clemency decisions for the Landsberg inmates set in motion a much broader process that eventually freed hundreds of other convicted Nazi war criminals over the next five years. . . . By the winter of 1950-1951 the most senior levels of the U.S. government had decided to abrogate their wartime pledge to bring Nazi war criminals to justice. . . . in the interests of preserving West German military support for American leadership in the cold war. While nazism and Hitler’s inner circle continued to be publicly condemned throughout the West, the actual investigation and prosecution of specific Nazi crimes came to a standstill.”


One case merits special attention: Sepp Dietrich, “the organizer of the Fuehrer’s bodyguard. Dietrich carried out Hitler’s personal murder assignments” and, Tetens continues, “was in charge of the liquidation of the Jewish population in the city of Kharkov. During the Battle of the Bulge his troops committed the Malmedy massacre, killing more than 600 military and civilian prisoners, among them 115 American G.I.s. He was sentenced to death, and the sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. In 1955 he was one of the last ‘poor devils’ quietly released from prison and greeted by the Bonn government with the homecoming pay of 6,000 marks.”


In a “New York Times” article published February 1, 1951, one prominent American expressed support for the reduction of sentences for those responsible for the mass murder of the 600 unarmed prisoners of war at Malmedy, describing the decision as “extremely wise.” The American was Senator Joseph McCarthy, Republican from Wisconsin.

Tetens observes that, despite the wide-spread fear by “the French, the British, and the smaller European countries” of a re-militarized Germany, “the outbreak of the Korean War (June 1950) brought a total change. The provisions which banned all military and veterans’ organizations lost all their meaning and were no longer enforced. Western Germany was allowed by the Allies to set up its own General Staff, camouflaged under the name Blank Office. Supported by Bonn and tolerated by the United States, a nation-wide network was created to reactivate the experienced officers and the man power of the old Wehrmacht. The short period of 1950-51 must be marked as the time when Hitler’s old officers, SS leaders, and [Nazi] party functionaries returned to power and influence.”


Tetens’ comment that the Nazi’s return to power in Germany was “tolerated by the United States” was a historical understatement. By the time Tetens’ book was published in 1961, hundreds of convicted Nazi war criminals had already been smuggled out of Germany to avoid prosecution at the war crimes trials at Nuremberg, recruited by, and on the payroll of several U.S. government agencies, including the Army CIC, the OSS, and the Office of Policy Coordination within the State Department.

Over the past fifty years, it is now documented, these Americanized fugitive Nazi war criminals have been involved in, and in many cases in charge of, many U.S. government covert operations — international weapons smuggling, drug cartels, Central American death squads, right wing anti-communist dictatorships, LSD mind control experiments — the Republican National Committee’s Ethnic Heritage Councils, and the Presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush.


Probably the most influential Nazi to come to work for the United States intelligence agencies during the Cold War was named Gehlen.

“Reinhard Gehlen,” writes author Christopher Simpson, “Hitler’s most senior military intelligence officer on the eastern front, had begun planning his surrender to the United States at least as early as the fall of 1944.” Of “several hundred” high-ranking Nazi officers who switched sides at the end of World War II, Gehlen “proved to be the most important of them all.

“In early March 1945 Gehlen and a small group of his most senior officers carefully microfilmed the vast holdings on the USSR in the . . . military intelligence section of the German army’s general staff. They packed the film in watertight steel drums and secretly buried it in remote mountain meadows scattered through the Austrian Alps. Then, on May 22, 1945, Gehlen and his top aides surrendered to an American Counter-intelligence Corps [CIC] team.”


According to Tetens: “. . . [Gehlen] immediately asked for an interview with the commanding officer . . .” and offered the United States “his intelligence staff, spy apparatus, and the priceless files for future service.”

Gehlen was sent to Washington and his offer was taken. “The Pentagon-Gehlen agreement,” states Tetens, “in practice guaranteed the continuation of the all-important Abwehr division of the German General Staff. Hundreds of German army and SS officers were quietly released from internment camps and joined Gehlen’s headquarters in the Spessart Mountains in central Germany. When the staff had grown to three thousand men, the Bureau Gehlen opened a closely guarded twenty-five-acre compound near Pullach, south of Munich, operating under the innocent name of the South German Industrial Development Organization. . . .

“Within a few years the Gehlen apparatus had grown by leaps and bounds. In the early fifties it was estimated that the organization employed up to 4,000 intelligence specialists in Germany, mainly former army and SS officers, and that more than 4,000 V-men (undercover agents) were active throughout the Soviet-bloc countries. Gehlen’s spy network stretches from Korea to Cairo, from Siberia to Santiago de Chile. . . . When the Federal Republic [of West Germany] became a sovereign state in 1955, the Bureau Gehlen was openly recognized as the official intelligence arm of the Bonn government.”


How important was the Gehlen Org, as it became known, to the history of the Cold War? Simpson’s research documents that it was perhaps the most significant element of all:

“. . . . The Org became the most important eyes and ears for U.S. intelligence inside the closed societies of the Soviet bloc. “In 1946 [U.S.] intelligence files on the Soviet Union were virtually empty,” says Harry Rositzke, the CIA’s former chief of espionage inside the Soviet Union. “. . . . Rositzke worked closely with Gehlen during the formative years of the CIA and credits Gehlen’s organization with playing a “primary role” in filling the empty file folders during that period. . . .”

“Gehlen had to make his money by creating a threat that we were afraid of,” says Victor Marchetti, formerly the CIA’s chief analyst of Soviet strategic war plans and capabilities, “so we would give him more money to tell us about it.” He continues: “In my opinion, the Gehlen Organization provided nothing worthwhile for the understanding or estimating Soviet military or political capabilities in Eastern Europe or anywhere else.” Employing Gehlen was “a waste of time, money, and effort, except that maybe he had some CI [counter- intelligence] value, because practically everybody in his organization was sucking off both tits.”


By “sucking off both tits” Marchetti is referring to the fact that Gehlen’s elaborate operation was penetrated by Soviet spies at the very time it was our most important source of intelligence upon which the Cold War was based. In fact, the Communists had infiltrated Nazi intelligence long before Gehlen switched sides.


“In each generation,” write Aarons and Loftus,”Soviet intelligence created “anti-Communist” emigre front groups, ostensibly to foment revolution and topple Bolshevism. The front groups attracted support from the West. Considerable financial assistance was supplied and close ties forged with various Western intelligence services. This enabled the Communist double agents running the front groups to co-opt the legitimate emigre opposition, splinter their leadership and provoke them into premature and poorly organized rebellions which were easily defeated. More importantly, the false front groups were a vehicle for long-term Soviet penetration of Western society. . . .”

The authors identify one of these groups as the Narodny Trudovoi Soyuz (NTS), or the People’s Labour Alliance. The NTS represented itself as a group of anti-communist “moles” inside the Kremlin and, in the 1920s, recruited a Communist agent named Prince Anton Vasilevich Turkel. Turkel, who actually worked for Soviet Military intelligence (GRU), went on to penetrate French, Japanese, Italian, British, German, and even the Vatican intelligence services before the end of World War II.

“After World War II, Turkel worked for West German intelligence (the Gehlen Org), collaborated with many of the spy services of NATO, including the American Military Intelligence Service (MIS – for offensive intelligence), the US Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC – for defensive purposes), the ultra-secret State Department Office of Policy Co-ordination and the Central Intelligence Agency. . .”


“Just before World War II began,” according to the authors, “an Austrian Jew named Richard Kauder created a secret intelligence network, code named MAX.” Kauder, using the name of [Max] Klatt – Turkel’s intelligence chief [“Unholy Trinity,” Aarons and Loftus, p. 166] – “worked exclusively for Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the German spy chief who collaborated with the Vatican and the British to topple Hitler during the war [the group known as the Black Orchestra].”

The Nazis thought the Max network was made up of “so-called Fascist Jews” who “were willing to spy against the Soviet Union, not for the glory of the Third Reich but to save themselves and their families from the concentration camps.” The Max network was supposed to have had “the only communication link to a secret network of “White” Russian Fascists inside the Kremlin [Turkel’s NTS], who had supposedly infiltrated Stalin’s military headquarters prior to World War II.” But, the authors continue, “the Max network was not made up of Fascist Jews. They were, in fact, Communist Jews who risked their lives inside the heart of the Third Reich’s intelligence service.”

The Max network actually misled the Nazis, feeding them false intelligence on the capabilities and intentions of the Soviet Union, leading “the Nazi divisions into a series of death traps on the Eastern front.” The Max double-agents were responsible for the Nazis defeats at Stalingrad, “the giant battle of Kursk where Hitler’s tank divisions were slaughtered. The final sting,” continue the authors, “was to mislead Germany into believing that the Red army was on the verge of collapse in 1944, when in fact the Soviets were preparing for the most massive onslaught of the war.

“It would not be an exaggeration to say that the “Fascist Jews” of the Max network did more to defeat the German army than all the Western intelligence services combined. Seventy percent of all Hitler’s divisions were destroyed on the Eastern front, largely as a result of the misleading intelligence supplied by Max.”


When Gehlen was recruited by the United States, Allen Dulles ordered the ex-Nazi spymaster to “revive the Max network.” Gehlen already had plans to do just that, intending “to make Turkel’s Max network the centerpiece of his new West German intelligence agency. As soon as a Republican president was elected in the United States, Dulles intended to take over the CIA and make Gehlen and Turkel the heart of his anti-Soviet network. The Soviets, of course, were delighted as they watched Dulles and Gehlen attempt to plant a Communist spy ring in the heart of Western intelligence. . . .

“. . . [E]ventually, in 1956, the Allies decided that the whole thing had been a giant Soviet-controlled operation. Dozens of operations, hundreds of agents, thousands of innocent civilians had been betrayed. . . .

“. . . [T]hree years after Dulles became head of CIA in 1953, his pet “Fascist,” Turkel, broadcast the CIA codes to start the Hungarian uprising prematurely. Thousands of innocent Hungarians rushed on to the streets of Budapest to start the revolution. Instead of American paratroopers dropping supplies, they found Soviet tanks waiting in the suburbs.”

By 1959, the collapse of Dulles’s spy network was almost total: “U.S. Military Intelligence admitted to the National Security Council that it did not have a single network of couriers or safe houses left in Communist territory, apart from East Germany. Dulles’s Nazi “freedom fighters” had sold him out.”



It was Harry Rositze who best described the attitude of the United States military-intelligence establishment after the end of World War II: “Any bastard as long as he was anti-Communist.” Rositze, the “former head of secret operations inside the USSR” for the CIA, was correct.


We have seen that many Nazis – including those who committed atrocities – returned to positions of power and influence inside Germany after the war. Unknown until fairly recently was the extent of Nazi recruitment by U.S. intelligence agencies and political organizations, in the 1940s and 1950s.

Perhaps the most publicized program of Nazi recruitment is that of Project Paperclip, which involved the collection of Nazi rocket scientists and facilities, all of which were later incorporated into the U.S. Space Program. Klaus Barbie’s employment by the U.S. State Department in the 1940s is another well-known incident. Barbie, head of the Gestapo in Lyons, France, was known as the “Butcher of Lyons” and was sought by the French Government for atrocities committed against French Resistance fighters captured by the Nazis. Barbie was recruited as a U.S. intelligence “asset” in 1947 by one branch of the State Department’s Counter-intelligence Corps (CIC), while another branch, the Operation Selection Board, a joint U.S./British project, was trying to put him in prison for war crimes.

Eventually, according to Aarons and Loftus, “Barbie’s employment (and protection) by the Americans began to reach French newspapers and politicians at least as early as 1948. They, in turn brought increasing pressure on the U.S. government through publicity and eventually through official notes requesting Barbie’s extradition from Germany. That, in the final analysis, is why the CIC chose to provide Barbie with a new identity and safe passage to Argentina in 1951, while thousands of other ex-Nazis who had been “of interest” to the CIC at one time or another have simply lived out their lives in Germany. If the CIC had dumped Barbie when the French government began requesting his extradition, he would have had plenty of compromising things to say about the CIC. . .”


But when Barbie was eventually captured by Bolivian authorities in the early 1980s, and returned to France to face charges of war crimes, the U.S. government was forced to conduct an investigation into the Barbie affair. The official position? “. . . [T]his investigation concluded that the United States had indeed protected Barbie in Europe and engineered his escape but that Barbie was the only such Nazi who had been assisted in this fashion.”


As documented previously, this statement was false. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Nazis were employed by the several U.S. agencies, from the CIC to the CIA, and used in covert operations overseas, as our first line of defense against Communism. Others, equally as guilty of wartime atrocities, were brought into the United States for domestic political purposes. This aspect of the U.S.-Nazi connection is well-documented, and deserves closer attention by the mainstream press.

One of the first researchers to reveal the connections between the U.S. government and the Nazis, was a lady named Mae Brussell of Carmel, California. Her career as a conspiracy researcher and host of the weekly radio program “World Watchers International” began with the Kennedy assassination. “In ferreting out every morsel from the Warren Report,” writes Jonathan Vankin, author of the book “Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes,” “supplementing her research with untold amounts of reading from the “New York Times” to “Soldier of Fortune,” Brussell discovered not merely a conspiracy of a few renegade CIA agents, Mafiosi, and Castro haters behind Kennedy’s death, but a vast, invisible institutional structure layered into the very fabric of the U.S. political system.

“Comprising the government within a government were not just spies, gangsters, and Cubans, but Nazis. Mae found that many of the commission witnesses — whose testimony established Oswald as a lone nut” — had never even spoken to Oswald, or knew him only slightly. The bulk of them were White Russian emigres living in Dallas. Extreme in their anti-Communism, they were often affiliated with groups set up by the SS in World War II — Eastern European ethnic armies used by the Nazis to carry out their dirtiest work.

“Brussell also discovered an episode from history rarely reported in the media, and not often taught in universities. Those same collaborationist groups were absorbed by United States intelligence agencies. They hooked up with the spy net of German General Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s Eastern Front espionage chief.”

“This is a story of how key Nazis . . . anticipated military disaster and laid plans to transplant nazism, intact but disguised, in havens in the West,” wrote Mae Brussell in 1983. She didn’t author too many articles, but this one, “The Nazi Connection to the John F. Kennedy Assassination” (in “The Rebel,” a short-lived political magazine published by “Hustler” impresario Larry Flynt), was definitive, albeit convoluted.

“It is a story that climaxes in Dallas on November 22, 1963, when John Kennedy was struck down,” Brussell’s article continued. “And it is a story with an aftermath — America’s slide to the brink of Fascism.”

Mae Brussell quit broadcasting her radio show in Spring of 1988, after receiving a death threat from a “man who is said to have identified himself as “a fascist and proud of it.”

The last project she worked on, before her death from cancer on October 3, 1988, writes the author, “was a study of Satanic cults — within the U.S. military. The hidden fascist oligarchy had progressed far beyond the need for patsies like Oswald. They were now able, Brussell asserted, to hypnotically program assassins.

“Satanic cults are the state of the art in brainwashing. With drugs, sex, and violence, they strip any semblance of moral thought. They are perfect for use in creating killers. The United States military, Brussell found, was using them.”



1. One Thousand Americans, George Seldes, p. 5-6

2. The Secret War Against the Jews, Loftus and Aarons, p. 71

3. Ibid., pp. 73-74

4. Ibid., pp. 75-76

5. Ibid., p. 77

6. Ibid., p. 78

7. Ibid., pp. 79-80

8. Ibid., pp. 82-83

9. Ibid., pp. 84-85

10. Ibid., pp. 85-86

11.Tragedy and Hope, Prof. Carrol Quigley, p. 827

12.Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 100-102

13. The American Establishment, Leonard and Mark Silk, p. 249

14. The New Germany and the Old Nazis, T.H. Tetens, pp. 99-102

15. Blowback: America”s recruitment of Nazis and its effects on the Cold War, Christopher Simpson, pp. 191-192

16. The New Germany and the Old Nazis, p. 103

17. Ibid., pp. 112-113

18. Blowback, pp. 40-41

19. The New Germany and the Old Nazis, pp. 42-43

20. Blowback, pp. 54-55

21. Unholy Trinity, Mark Aarons and John Loftus, pp. 151-152

22. The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 135-136

23. Ibid., pp. 151-152

24. Blowback, p. 159

25. Ibid., pp. 187-189

26. Ibid., pp. 192-193

27. Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes, Jonathan Vankin, pp. 101-104

The Elkhorn Manifesto       Part V


In this section we will explore the Nazi connections of Richard Nixon. To do so we must return to the years just after the end of World War II and, of course, a man named Dulles.

The irony of Nixon’s political career ending with a cover-up can only be appreciated with the knowledge that this turbulent career also began with one. Loftus and Aarons state that:

“According to several of our sources among the “old spies,” Richard Nixon’s political career began in 1945, when he was the navy officer temporarily assigned to review . . . captured Nazi documents.” The documents in question revealed the wartime record of Karl Blessing, “former Reichsbank officer and then head of the Nazi oil cartel, Kontinentale Ol A.G. “Konti” was in partnership with Dulles’s principal Nazi client, I.G. Farben. Both companies had despicable records regarding their treatment of Jews during the Holocaust. After the war Dulles not only “lost” Blessings Nazi party records, but he helped peddle a false biography in the ever-gullible “New York Times.”

The authors’ sources reveal that not only did Dulles help cover up his Nazi client’s record, he “personally vouched for Blessing as an anti-Nazi in order to protect continued control of German oil interests in the Middle East. Blessing’s Konti was the Nazi link to Iben Saud [King of Saudi Arabia] and Aramco [the Arabian- American Oil Company]. If Blessing went down, he could have taken a lot of people with him, including Allen Dulles. The cover-up worked, except that U.S. Naval Intelligence scrutinized a set of the captured Konti records.”

According to the “old spies,” Allen Dulles made a deal with the young navy officer who was reviewing the Konti files – Richard Nixon. Nixon would help Dulles bury the Konti files. In return, Allen Dulles “arranged to finance [Nixon’s] first congressional campaign against Jerry Voorhis.”


Dulles’s support for Nixon paid off in 1947 when, as the freshman congressman from California, he “saved John Foster Dulles considerable embarrassment by privately pointing out that confidential government files showed that one of Foster’s foundation employees, Alger Hiss, was allegedly a Communist. The Dulles brothers took Nixon under their wing and escorted him on a tour of Fascist “freedom fighter” operations in Germany, apparently in anticipation that the young congressman would be useful after Dewey became president.” [He would be useful anyway, despite the fact that incumbent President Truman won reelection in 1948, defeating Dewey.]


After Truman’s victory, write the authors, “Nixon became Allen Dulles’s mouthpiece in Congress. Both he and Senator Joseph McCarthy received volumes of classified information to support the charge that the Truman administration was filled with “pinkos.” When McCarthy went too far in his Communist investigations, it was Nixon who worked with his next-door neighbor, CIA director Bedell Smith, to steer the investigations away from the intelligence community.

“The CIA was grateful for Nixon’s assistance, but did not know the reason for it. Dulles had been recruiting Nazis under the cover of the State Department’s Office of Policy Coordination, whose chief, Frank Wisner, had systematically recruited the Eastern European emigre networks that had worked first for the SS, then the British, and finally Dulles.

“The CIA did not know it, but Dulles was bringing them to the United States less for intelligence purposes than for political advantage. The Nazis’ job quickly became to get out the vote for the Republicans. One Israeli intelligence officer joked that when Dulles used the phrase “Never Again,” he was not talking about the Holocaust but about Dewey’s narrow loss to Truman. In the eyes of the Israelis, Allen Dulles was the demon who infected Western intelligence with Nazi recruits.

“In preparation for the 1952 Eisenhower-Nixon campaign, the Republicans formed an Ethnic Division, which, to put it bluntly, recruited the “displaced Fascists” who arrived in the United States after World War II. Like similar migrant organizations in several Western countries, the Ethnic Division attracted a significant number of Central and Eastern European Nazis, who had been recruited by the SS as political and police leaders during the Holocaust. These Fascist emigres supported the Eisenhower-Nixon “liberation” policy as the quickest means of getting back into power in their former homelands and made a significant contribution “in its first operation (1951/1952).””

The authors point out that “over the years the Democrats had acquired one or two Nazis of their own, such as Tscherim Soobzokov, a former member of the Caucasian SS who worked as a party boss in New Jersey. But in 90 percent of the cases, the members of Hitler’s political organization went to the Republicans. In fact, from the very beginning, the word had been put around among Eastern European Nazis that Dulles and Nixon were the men to see, especially if you were a rich Fascist . . .”


This relationship between Richard Nixon and the Nazis developed because both he and Allen Dulles “blamed Governor Dewey’s razor-thin loss to Truman in the 1948 presidential election on the Jewish vote. When [Nixon] became Eisenhower’s vice president in 1952, Nixon was determined to build his own ethnic base.

“Vice President Nixon’s secret political war of Nazis against Jews in American politics was never investigated at the time. The foreign language-speaking Croatian and other Fascist emigre groups had a ready-made network for contacting and mobilizing the Eastern European ethnic bloc. There is a very high correlation between CIA domestic subsidies to Fascist “freedom fighters” during the 1950s and the leadership of the Republican party’s ethnic campaign groups. The motive for under-the-table financing was clear: Nixon used Nazis to offset the Jewish vote for the Democrats.

“In 1952 Nixon had formed an Ethnic Division within the Republican National Committee. “Displaced Fascists, hoping to be returned to power by an Eisenhower-Nixon “liberation” policy signed on” with the committee. In 1953, when Republicans were in office, the immigration laws were changed to admit Nazis, even members of the SS. They flooded into the country. Nixon himself oversaw the new immigration program. As vice president, he even received Eastern European Fascists in the White House. After a long, long journey, the Croatian Nazis had found a new home in the United States, where they reestablished their networks.

“In 1968 Nixon promised that if he won the presidential election, he would create a permanent ethnic council within the Republican party. Previously the Ethnic Division was allowed to surface only during presidential campaigns. Nixon’s promise was carried out after the 1972 election, during [George] Bush’s tenure as chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Croatian Ustashis became an integral part of the campaign structure of Republican politics, along with several other Fascist organizations.”


The authors describe Nixon’s pro-Nazi activities in no uncertain terms: “Nixon himself personally recruited ex-Nazis for his 1968 presidential campaign. Moreover, Vice President Nixon became the point man for the Eisenhower administration on covert operations and personally supervised Allen Dulles’s projects while Ike was ill in 1956 and 1957.”


One of the Nazis recruited by candidate Nixon was Laszlo Pasztor, described by Aarons and Loftus as “the founding chair of Nixon’s Republican Heritage Groups council” who, “during World War II . . . was a diplomat in Berlin representing the Arrow Cross government of Nazi Hungary, which supervised the extermination of the Jewish population.

“[A]fter Nixon won [the 1968 Presidential Election], he approved Pasztor’s appointment as chief organizer of the ethnic council. Not surprisingly, Pasztor’s “choices for filling emigre slots as the council was being formed included various Nazi collaborationist organizations.” The former Fascists were coming out of the closet in droves.

“The policy of the Nixon White House was an “open door” for emigre Fascists, and through the door came such guests as Ivan Docheff, head of the Bulgarian National Front and chairman of the American Friends of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN). . . . an organization dominated by war criminals and fugitive Fascists. Yet Nixon welcomed them with open arms and even had Docheff to breakfast for a prayer meeting to celebrate Captive Nations Week.”


“During Nixon’s “Four More Years” campaign in 1971-1972, Laszlo Pasztor again played a key role in marshaling the ethnic vote. No longer a marginal player on the fringes, now he held a key position as the Republican National Committee’s nationalities director. . . .

“The Republican leadership cannot claim ignorance as a defense. [Syndicated Columnist Jack] Anderson’s famous expose of Nixon’s Nazis appeared in “The Washington Post” at the same time as the November 1971 convention. Among those mentioned was Laszlo Pasztor, “the industrious head of the GOP ethnic groups, [who] was never asked about his wartime activities in Hungary by the four GOP officials who interviewed him for his job.” It was too embarrassing for Nixon to admit that Pasztor had been a ranking member of a Fascist government at war with the United States.

“. . . . It is one thing to promote obscure Eastern European Fascist movements in the Republican party. It is quite another to let the German Nazis have a major influence. After 1953, the Republican administration changed the rules, and even members of the Waffen SS could immigrate to the United States as long as they claimed only to have fought the Communists on the Eastern Front.”


The Republican/Nixon attraction to Nazism was also observed by Robert J. Groden and Harrison Edward Livingstone, authors of the book, “High Treason,” dealing with the Kennedy Assassination. Groden and Livingstone write: “Nixon surrounded himself with what was known as the Berlin Wall, a long succession of advisors with Germanic names: We recall at the top of his “German General Staff” as it was also known, Haldeman, Erlichman, Krogh, Kliendienst, Kissinger (the Rockefellers’ emissary) and many others.

“The selection of German names was no accident. Many of the brighter staff people close to Nixon came to him from the University of Southern California, and the University of California at Los Angeles, where there were fraternities that kept alive the vision of a new Reich. America has for a long time harbored this dark side of its character, one of violence and the Valhalla of Wagner and Hitler.

“But Gordon Liddy was the one in whose mind “Triumph of the Will” was the most alive. Some of these men would watch the great Nazi propaganda films in the basement of the White House until all hours of the night, and drink, in fact, get drunk with their power, with blind ambition, as one of them wrote.”


“According to several of our sources in the intelligence community who were in a position to know,” continue Loftus and Aarons, “the secret rosters of the Republican party’s Nationalities Council read like a Who’s Who of Fascist fugitives. The Republican’s Nazi connection is the darkest secret of the Republican leadership. The rosters will never be disclosed to the public. As will be seen in Chapter 16 dealing with George Bush, the Fascist connection is too widespread for damage control.

“According to a 1988 study by Russ Bellant of Political Research Associates, virtually all of the Fascist organizations of World War II opened up a Republican party front group during the Nixon administration. The caliber of the Republican ethnic leaders can be gauged by one New Jersey man, Emanuel Jasiuk, a notorious mass murderer from what is today called the independent nation of Belarus, formerly part of the Soviet Union. But not all American ethnic communities are represented in the GOP’s ethnic section; there are no black or Jewish heritage groups. . . .

“The truth is that the Nazi immigrants were “tar babies” that no one knew how to get rid of. Dulles had brought in a handful of the top emigre politicians in the late 1940s. They in turn sponsored their friends in the 1950s. By the 1960s ex-Nazis who had originally fled to Argentina were moving to the United States. . . .”


It is clear that, even before the break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters on June 17, 1972, the Republicans were on the brink of having their pro-Nazi activities over the past four decades become a matter of mass-media attention. After the Watergate Break-in, as the Congressional Hearings began to reveal the slush-funds, money-laundering, illegal corporate campaign contributions, the political sabotage of the 1972 Presidential election process, the involvement of ITT and the Nixon Administration into the assassination of Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, and many other aspects of Nixonism, the floodgates of truth were about to open. Only one thing averted this wholesale learning of the truth by the American people: Nixon’s resignation and subsequent pardoning by his hand-picked successor, Gerald Ford.


1. The Secret War Against the Jews, p. 221

2. Ibid., pp. 221-222

3. Ibid., pp. 222-223

4. Ibid., pp. 122-123

5. Ibid., pp. 224-225

6. Ibid., pp. 297-298

7. Ibid., pp. 298-299

8. High Treason, Robert J. Groden and Harrison Edward Livingstone, pp. 417-418

9. The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 300-301


Like Richard Nixon, George Bush was a strong anti-marijuana/hemp president, escalating the so-called “war on drugs” begun by Nixon. And, like Nixon, George Bush was deeply involved with supporting the Nazis in the Republican’s closet. In fact, support for the Nazis was a Bush family tradition which goes back more than six decades and, once again, to Allen Dulles.

Loftus and Aarons write: “The real story of George Bush starts well before he launched his own career. It goes back to the 1920s, when the Dulles brothers and the other pirates of Wall Street were making their deals with the Nazis. . . .”


“George Bush’s problems were inherited from his namesake and maternal grandfather, George Herbert “Bert” Walker, a native of St. Louis, who founded the banking and investment firm of G. H. Walker and Company in 1900. Later the company shifted from St. Louis to the prestigious address of 1 Wall Street. . . .

“Walker was one of Hitler’s most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler’s infant Nazi party. As mentioned in earlier chapters, there were American contributors as well.

“Some Americans were just bigots and made their connections to Germany through Allen Dulles’s firm of Sullivan and Cromwell because they supported Fascism. The Dulles brothers, who were in it for profit more than ideology, arranged American investments in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to ensure that their clients did well out of the German economic recovery. . . .

“Sullivan & Cromwell was not the only firm engaged in funding Germany. According to “The Splendid Blond Beast,” Christopher Simpson’s seminal history of the politics of genocide and profit, Brown Brothers, Harriman was another bank that specialized in investments in Germany. The key figure was Averill Harriman, a dominating figure in the American establishment. . . .

“The firm originally was known as W. A. Harriman & Company. The link between Harriman & Company’s American investors and Thyssen started in the 1920s, through the Union Banking Corporation, which began trading in 1924. In just one three-year period, the Harriman firm sold more than $50 million of German bonds to American investors. “Bert” Walker was Union Banking’s president, and the firm was located in the offices of Averill Harriman’s company at 39 Broadway in New York.

“In 1926 Bert Walker did a favor for his new son-in-law, Prescott Bush. It was the sort of favor families do to help their children make a start in life, but Prescott came to regret it bitterly. Walker made Prescott vice president of W. A. Harriman. The problem was that Walker’s specialty was companies that traded with Germany. As Thyssen and the other German industrialists consolidated Hitler’s political power in the 1930s, an American financial connection was needed. According to our sources, Union Banking became an out-and-out Nazi money-laundering machine. . . .

“In [1931], Harriman & Company merged with a British-American investment company to become Brown Brothers, Harriman. Prescott Bush became one of the senior partners of the new company, which relocated to 59 Broadway, while Union Banking remained at 39 Broadway. But in 1934 Walker arranged to put his son-in-law on the board of directors of Union Banking.

“Walker also set up a deal to take over the North American operations of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, a cover for I.G. Farben’s Nazi espionage unit in the United States. The shipping line smuggled in German agents, propaganda, and money for bribing American politicians to see things Hitler’s way. The holding company was Walker’s American Shipping & Commerce, which shared the offices at 39 Broadway with Union Banking. In an elaborate corporate paper trail, Harriman’s stock in American Shipping & Commerce was controlled by yet another holding company, the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, run out of Walker’s office. The directors of this company were Averill Harriman, Bert Walker, and Prescott Bush. . . .

“. . . In a November 1935 article in Common Sense, retired marine general Smedley D. Butler blamed Brown Brothers, Harriman for having the U.S. marines act like “racketeers” and “gangsters” in order to exploit financially the peasants of Nicaragua. . . .

“. . . A 1934 congressional investigation alleged that Walker’s “Hamburg-Amerika Line subsidized a wide range of pro-Nazi propaganda efforts both in Germany and the United States.” Walker did not know it, but one of his American employees, Dan Harkins, had blown the whistle on the spy apparatus to Congress. Harkins, one of our best sources, became Roosevelt’s first double agent . . . [and] kept up the pretense of being an ardent Nazi sympathizer, while reporting to Naval Intelligence on the shipping company’s deals with Nazi intelligence.

“Instead of divesting the Nazi money,” continue the authors, “Bush hired a lawyer to hide the assets. The lawyer he hired had considerable expertise in such underhanded schemes. It was Allen Dulles. According to Dulles’s client list at Sullivan & Cromwell, his first relationship with Brown Brothers, Harriman was on June 18, 1936. In January 1937 Dulles listed his work for the firm as “Disposal of Stan [Standard Oil] Investing stock.”

“As discussed in Chapter 3, Standard Oil of New Jersey had completed a major stock transaction with Dulles’s Nazi client, I.G. Farben. By the end of January 1937 Dulles had merged all his cloaking activities into one client account: “Brown Brothers Harriman-Schroeder Rock.” Schroeder, of course, was the Nazi bank on whose board Dulles sat. The “Rock” were the Rockefellers of Standard Oil, who were already coming under scrutiny for their Nazi deals. By May 1939 Dulles handled another problem for Brown Brothers, Harriman, their “Securities Custodian Accounts.”

“If Dulles was trying to conceal how many Nazi holding companies Brown Brothers, Harriman was connected with, he did not do a very good job. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, word leaked from Washington that affiliates of Prescott Bush’s company were under investigation for aiding the Nazis in time of war. . . .

“. . . The government investigation against Prescott Bush continued. Just before the storm broke, his son, George, abandoned his plans to enter Yale and enlisted in the U.S. Army. It was, say our sources among the former intelligence officers, a valiant attempt by an eighteen-year-old boy to save the family’s honor.

“Young George was in flight school in October 1942, when the U.S. government charged his father with running Nazi front groups in the United States. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, all the shares of the Union Banking Corporation were seized, including those held by Prescott Bush as being in effect held for enemy nationals. Union Banking, of course, was an affiliate of Brown Brothers, Harriman, and Bush handled the Harrimans’ investments as well.

“Once the government had its hands on Bush’s books, the whole story of the intricate web of Nazi front corporations began to unravel. A few days later two of Union Banking’s subsidiaries — the Holland American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation — also were seized. Then the government went after the Harriman Fifteen Holding Company, which Bush shared with his father-in-law, Bert Walker, the Hamburg-Amerika Line, and the Silesian-American Corporation. The U.S. government found that huge sections of Prescott Bush’s empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort.” (1)


“Try as he did,” continue the authors, “George Bush could not get away from Dulles’s crooked corporate network, which his grandfather and father had joined in the 1920s. Wherever he turned, George found that the influence of the Dulles brothers was already there. Even when he fled to Texas to become a successful businessman on his own, he ran into the pirates of Wall Street.

“One of Allen Dulles’s secret spies inside the Democratic party later became George Bush’s partner in the Mexican oil business. Edwin Pauley, a California oil man, was . . . one of Dulles’s covert agents in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations . . . a “big business” Democrat. . . .”

Among the key posts held by Pauley were: treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, director of the Democratic convention in 1944 and, after Truman’s election, Truman appointed him the “Petroleum Coordinator of Lend-Lease Supplies for the Soviet Union and Britain.”

Just after the end of World War II, “in April 1945 Truman appointed Pauley as the U.S. representative to the Allied Reparations Committee, with the rank of ambassador,” as well as “industrial and commercial advisor to the Potsdam Conference, “where his chief task was to renegotiate the reparations agreements formulated at Yalta.” As one historian noted, the “oil industry has always watched reparations activities carefully.” There was a lot of money involved, and much of it belonged to the Dulles brothers’ clients.”

At the same time, report Loftus and Aarons,

“the Dulles brothers were still shifting Nazi assets out of Europe for their clients as well as for their own profit. They didn’t want the Soviets to get their hands on these assets or even know that they existed. Pauley played a significant role in solving this problem for the Dulles brothers. The major part of Nazi Germany’s industrial assets was located in the zones occupied by the West’s forces. As Washington’s man on the ground, Pauley managed to deceive the Soviets for long enough to allow Allen Dulles to spirit much of the remaining Nazi assets out to safety. . . .

“Pauley, a key player in the plan to hide the Dulles brothers’ Nazi assets, then moved into another post where he could help them further. After successfully keeping German assets in Fascist hands, Pauley was given the job of “surveying Japan’s assets and determining the amount of its war debt.” Again, it was another job that was crucial to the Dulles clique’s secret financial and intelligence operations.”


After Pauley retired from government work he went back to being an independent oil man. Loftus and Aarons state that: “In 1958 he founded Pauley Petroleum which: . . . teamed up with Howard Hughes to expand oil production in the Gulf of Mexico.

“Pauley Petroleum discovered a highly productive offshore petroleum reserve and in 1959 became involved in a dispute with the Mexican Government, which considered the royalties from the wells to be too low.

“According to our sources in the intelligence community, the oil dispute was really a shakedown of the CIA by Mexican politicians. Hughes and Pauley were working for the CIA from time to time, while advancing their own financial interests in the lucrative Mexican oil fields. Pauley, say several of our sources, was the man who invented an intelligence money-laundering system in Mexico, which was later refined in the 1970s as part of Nixon’s Watergate scandal. At one point CIA agents used Pemex, the Mexican government’s oil monopoly, as a business cover at the same time Pemex was being used as a money laundry for Pauley’s campaign contributions. As we shall see, the Mexican-CIA connection played an important part in the development of George Bush’s political and intelligence career. . . .

“Pauley, say the “old spies,” was the man who brought all the threads of the Mexican connection together. He was Bush’s business associate, a front man for Dulles’s CIA [Allen Dulles was CIA director then], and originator of the use of Mexican oil fronts to create a slush fund for Richard Nixon’s various campaigns. . . .

“Although it is not widely known, Pauley, in fact, had been a committed, if “secret,” Nixon supporter since 1960. It should be recalled that Nixon tried to conceal his Mexican slush fund during the Watergate affair by pressuring the CIA into a “national security” cover-up. The CIA, to its credit, declined to participate. Unfortunately, others were so enmeshed in Pauley’s work for Nixon that they could never extricate themselves. According to a number of our intelligence sources, the deals Bush cut with Pauley in Mexico catapulted him into political life. In 1960 Bush became a protege of Richard Nixon, who was then running for president of the United States. . . .

“The most intriguing of Bush’s early connections was to Richard Nixon, who as vice president had supervised Allen Dulles’s covert planning for the Bay of Pigs [invasion]. For years it has been rumored that Dulles’s client, George Bush’s father, was one of the Republican leaders who recruited Nixon to run for Congress and later convinced Eisenhower to take him on as vice president. There is no doubt that the two families were close. George Bush described Nixon as his “mentor.” Nixon was a Bush supporter in his very first tilt at politics, during his unsuccessful run for the Senate in 1964, and turned out again when he entered the House two years later.

“After Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972, he ordered a general house cleaning on the basis of loyalty. “Eliminate everyone,” he told John Ehrlichman about reappointments, “except George Bush. Bush will do anything for our cause.” . . . According to Bush’s account, the president told him that “the place I really need you is over at the National Committee running things.” So, in 1972, Nixon appointed George Bush as head of the Republican National Committee.

“It was Bush who fulfilled Nixon’s promise to make the “ethnic” emigres a permanent part of Republican politics. In 1972 Nixon’s State Department spokesman confirmed to his Australian counterpart that the ethnic groups were very useful to get out the vote in several key states. Bush’s tenure as head of the Republican National Committee exactly coincided with Laszlo Pasztor’s 1972 drive to transform the Heritage Groups Council into the party’s official ethnic arm. The groups Pasztor chose as Bush’s campaign allies were the emigre Fascists whom Dulles had brought to the United States. . . .

“. . . Nearly twenty years later, and after expose’s in several respectable newspapers, Bush continued to recruit most of the same ethnic Fascists, including Pasztor, for his own 1988 ethnic outreach program when he first ran for president.

“According to our sources in the intelligence community,” state the authors, “it was Bush who told Nixon that the Watergate investigations might start uncovering the Fascist skeletons in the Republican party’s closet. Bush himself acknowledges that he wrote Nixon a letter asking him to step down. The day after Bush did so, Nixon resigned.

“Bush had hoped to become Gerald Ford’s vice president upon Nixon”s resignation, but he was appointed U.S. ambassador to the UN. Nelson Rockefeller became vice president and chief damage controller. He formed a special commission in an attempt to preempt the Senate’s investigation of the intelligence community. The Rockefeller Commission into CIA abuses was filled with old OPC [Dulles’s Office of Policy Coordination] hands like Ronald Reagan, who had been the front man back in the 1950s for the money-laundering organization, the Crusade for Freedom, which was part of Dulles’s Fascist “freedom fighters” program.”


In 1988, Project Censored, a news media censorship research organization, awarded the honor of “Top Censored story” to the subject of George Bush. The article revealed “how the major mass media ignored, overlooked or undercovered at least ten critical stories reported in America’s alternative press that raised serious questions about the Republican candidate, George Bush, dating from his reported role as a CIA “asset” in 1963 to his Presidential campaign’s connection with a network of anti-Semites with Nazi and fascist affiliations in 1988.” (4)


1. The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 357-361

2. Ibid., pp. 362-364

3. Ibid., pp. 365-371

4. The 1993 Project Censored Yearbook: The News That Didn’t Make The News – And Why, Project Censored; Dr. Carl Jensen, Director., pp. 230.

The Elkhorn Manifesto    Part VI     CONCLUSION

If, before you finished reading this publication, you ever wondered why the U.S. federal government refuses to consider the medicinal and industrial value of cannabis hemp, despite widespread and growing support from the public, medical experts, industry leaders, and a growing number of state legislators across this nation – you now have the answer.

For the past several generations, Americans have been systematically deceived about the true nature of cannabis hemp. Many Americans have died – victims of political murders. Millions have been imprisoned, their children and their property taken away, their futures destroyed. The history of my own state – Kentucky – and others as well, have been “sanitized,” rewritten, our heritage deleted, our citizens defrauded and impoverished to bury the truth.

And if, before you finished reading this publication, you ever wondered why the U.S. federal government would train and finance Central American death squads; or why, while waging the so-called “war on drugs,” the U.S. federal government would operate cocaine and heroin smuggling operations around the world, bringing in tons of drugs to places like Mena, Arkansas; or why the U.S. federal government would “spread democracy” throughout the world by assassinating democratically elected politicians – both at home and abroad – replacing them with right-wing dictators and training their secret police in the latest techniques of torture, terrorism, and mind control; or why the U.S. federal government would conduct deadly medical and radiation experiments on unsuspecting citizens – including pregnant women, the mentally impaired, and children – you now have the answer.

The last question is “what are we going to do about it?”



* The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics – Second Edition, By Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler – Duxbury Press, CA. 1972

* The Arms Bazaar: From Lebanon to Lockheed – By Anthony Sampson – The Viking Press, NY. 1977


* Facts and Fascism – By George Seldes (Assisted by Helen Seldes) – Sixth Edition – In Fact, Inc., NY. 1943

* Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949 – By Charles Higham – Delecorte Press, NY. 1983

* Even the Gods Can’t Change History: The Facts Speak for Themselves – By George Seldes – Lyle Stuart, Inc., NJ. 1976

* Power, Inc.: Public and Private Rulers and How to Make Them Accountable – By Morton Mintz & Jerry S. Cohen – Viking Press, NY. 1976

* The Plot to Seize the White House – By Jules Archer – Hawthorn Books, 1973

* It’s A Conspiracy!: The Shocking Truth About America’s Favorite Conspiracy Theories – By Michael Litchfield/The National Insecurity Council – EarthWorks Press, CA. 1992

* The Secret War Against The Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People – By John Loftus and Mark Aarons – St. Martin”s Press, NY. 1994

* HEMP & the Marijuana Conspiracy: The Emperor Wears No Clothes – By Jack Herer (Editors: C. Conrad, L. & J. Osburn, E. Komp, and J. Stout)

* H.E.M.P. (Help Eliminate Marijuana Prohibition), CA. 1995

* One Thousand Americans – By George Seldes – BONI & GAER, NY. 1947

* Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consentual Crimes in a Free Society – By Peter McWilliams – Prelude Press, CA. 1993

* A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky – By Professor James F. Hopkins – University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY. 1951

* Spooks: The Haunting of America – The Private Use of Secret Agents – By Jim Hougan – First Bantam Edition – William Morrow and Co., NY. 1979

* The Sovereign State of ITT – By Anthony Sampson – Stein and Day, NY. 1973

* Democracy for the Few – By Michael Parenti – Fourth Edition – St. Martin”s Press, NY. 1983


* Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time – By Carroll Quigley, Second Printing – Wm. Morrison, NY. 1974

* The American Establishment – By Leonard Silk & Mark Silk, First Discus Printing – Avon Books (by arrangement with Basic Books), NY. 1981

* The New Germany and the Old Nazis – By T.H. Tetens – Random House, NY. 1961

* Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effect on the Cold War – By Christopher Simpson – Weidenfeld & Nicolson, NY. 1988

* Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and Soviet Intelligence – By Mark Aarons & John Loftus, First U.S. Edition – St. Martins Press, NY. 1992

* Conspiracies, Cover-Ups and Crimes: From JFK to the CIA Terrorist Connection – By Jonathan Vankin – Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., NY. 1992


* High Treason: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the New Evidence of Conspiracy – By Robert J. Groden and Harrison Edward Livingstone, Berkley Edition – Berkley Books, NY. 1990


Censored: The News That Didn’t Make the News – And Why – By Carl Jensen – Shelburne Press, Inc., NY. 1993

Kentucky Marijuana Party Mission Statement


The KYMJP seeks to remove all penalties for adults 21 and over who choose to consume cannabis in a responsible manner.


“We demand an end to the war on productive and otherwise law abiding citizens by the powers that be who claim to protect us.”


“We demand the right to use any medication our healthcare providers and we deem fit without government interference.”


We demand the release of all people imprisoned on marijuana charges and that their criminal records be expunged.


We demand that all property seized in marijuana raids be returned to the rightful owners at once.


We demand that our law enforcement officers make more efficient use of our tax dollars and use the resources they have at their disposal to go after violent criminals and crimes that actually have victims.


We demand the right to grow marijuana for personal consumption, just as alcohol can be brewed at home legally so long as it is not sold untaxed.


We demand that you stop treating us like second class citizens for consuming something that is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal and cause numerous deaths each year. Cannabis has never caused one.


The Kentucky Marijuana Party

Acts Relating to Industrial Hemp In Kentucky

Kentucky Industrial Hemp Legislation

Kentucky State Legislature

HB 286
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the department to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the new sections; require the sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of five dollars per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of 150 dollars, to be divided equally between the department and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the department with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp, and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law; require Kentucky to adopt any federal rules or regulations relating to industrial hemp; amend KRS 218A.010 to conform; amend KRS 260.857 to make the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture the chair of the commission; amend KRS 260.859 to conform.
Introduced in House 1/19/2012; to Agriculture & Small Business (H) 1/20/2012.
Download the text of HB 286 here (PDF file 124k).

HB 272
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the department to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the new sections; require the sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of five dollars per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of $150 dollars, to be divided equally between the department and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the department with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp, and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law; require Kentucky to adopt any federal rules or regulations relating to industrial hemp; amend KRS 218A.010 to conform.
Introduced in House 1/18/2012; to Agriculture & Small Business (H) 1/20/2012.
Download the text of HB 272 here (PDF file 120k).

SB 41
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the department to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the new sections; require the sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of five dollars per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of 150 dollars, to be divided equally between the department and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the department with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp, and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law; require Kentucky to adopt any federal rules or regulations relating to industrial hemp; amend KRS 218A.010 to conform.
Introduced in Senate; to Agriculture (S) 1/3/2012.
Download the text of SB 41 here (PDF file 120k).

SR 51
A resolution to Adjourn in loving memory and honor of Louis Gatewood Galbraith. Introduced on 1/6/2012. Adopted by voice vote on 1/11/2012.
Download the text of SR 51 here (PDF file 72k).

SB 30
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department", "industrial hemp", and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the Department of Agriculture to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act; require sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of $5 per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of $150, to be divided equally between the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the Department of Agriculture with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp, and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law; require Kentucky to adopt any federal rules or regulations relating to industrial hemp.
(Prefiled by the sponsor(s) on 11/17/10) Introduced in Senate; to Agriculture (S) 1/4/2011.
Download the text of SB 30 here (PDF file 80k).

SB 14
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the Department of Agriculture to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act; require sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of $5 per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of $150, to be divided equally between the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the Department of Agriculture with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law. (Prefiled by the sponsor(s).) To: Interim Joint Committee on Agriculture 11/4/09. Introduced in Senate 1/5/10. Referred to Senate Agriculture committee 1/6/10.
Download the text of SB 14 here (PDF file 88k).

SB 131
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the Department of Agriculture to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act; require sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of $5 per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of $150, to be divided equally between the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the Department of Agriculture with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law. Introduced in Senate 2/12/09. Referred to Senate Agriculture Committee 2/23/09.
Download the text of SB 131 here (PDF file 88k).

HB 100
Passed into law and signed by Gov. Patton.
Download the text of HB 100 here (PDF file 13k).

HB 855
Legislative session ended with no action.
Download the text of HB 855 here (PDF file 9k).

HJR 121
Died in Senate.
Download the text of HJR 121 here (PDF file 4k).

Quick Links Concerning Industrial Hemp in Kentucky

Kentucky Revised Statutes:

Main Index

Statute Search

Kentucky Department of Agriculture:

Home Page

Kentucky Reports & Studies

Industrial Hemp
UK Cooperative Extension Service
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
New Crop Opportunities Center
October, 2009, 3 pages
(PDF file 348k)

Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky
By Dr. Eric C. Thompson, Dr. Mark C. Berger & Steven N. Allen
Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Kentucky
July, 1998, 75 pages
Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky – HTML version
Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky – Acrobat version (PDF file 643k)

Hemp Support: The European Union Experience (Draft)
By Valerie L. Vantreese
University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics
May, 2001, 11 pages
(PDF file 224k)

Industrial Hemp: Legislative Briefing
By Valerie L. Vantreese
University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics
January, 2001, 3 pages
(PDF file 29k)

Industrial Hemp: Global Operations, Local Implications
By Valerie L. Vantreese
University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics
July, 1998, 31 pages
(PDF file 262k)

Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky
By Dr. Eric C. Thompson, Dr. Mark C. Berger & Steven N. Allen
Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Kentucky
July, 1998, 75 pages
Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky – HTML version
Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky – Acrobat version (PDF file 643k)

Industrial Hemp: Global Markets and Prices
By Valerie L. Vantreese
University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics
January, 1997, 34 pages
(PDF file 301k)


Open Seeds: Biopiracy and the Patenting of Life by grtv


Open Seeds: Biopiracy and the Patenting of Life

by grtv

As the world begins to digest the implications of intellectual property for online censorship, another IP issue threatens an even more fundamental part of our daily lives: our food supply. Backed by legal precedent and armed with seemingly inexhaustible lobbying funds, a handful of multinationals are attempting to use patents on life itself to monopolize the biosphere.

Find out more about the process of patenting life and what it means for the food supply on this week’s GRTV Backgrounder.

Transcript and sources:

The oft-neglected legal minefield of intellectual property rights has seen a surge in public interest in recent months due to the storm of protest over proposed legislation and treaties related to online censorship.[1] One of the effects of such legislation as SOPA and PIPA and such international treaties as ACTA is to have drawn attention to the grave implications that intellectual property arguments can have on the everyday lives of the average citizen.

As important as the protection of online freedoms is, however, an even more fundamental part of our lives has come under the purview of the multinational corporations that are seeking to patent the world around us for their own gain. Unknown to a large section of the public, a single US Supreme Court ruling in 1980 made it possible for the first time to patent life itself for the profit of the patent holder.

The decision, known as Diamond v. Chakrabarty, centered on a genetic engineer working for General Electric who created a bacterium that could break down crude oil, which could be used in the clean-up of oil spills.[2] In its decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger ruled that:

“A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101”

With this ruling, the ability to patent living organisms, so long as they had been genetically altered in some novel way, was established in legal precedent.

The implications of such a monumental ruling are understandably wide-reaching, touching on all sorts of issues that have the potential to change the world around us. But it did not take long at all for this decision’s effects to make itself felt in one of the most basic parts of the biosphere: our food supply.

In the years following the Diamond v. Chakrabarty decision, an entire industry rose up around the idea that these new patent protections could foster the economic incentive for major corporations to develop a new class of genetically engineered foods to help increase crop yields and reduce world hunger.

The first commercially available genetically modified food, Calgene’s “Flavr Savr” tomato, was approved for human consumption by the Food and Drug Administration in the US in 1992 and was on the market in 1994.[3] Since then, adoption of GM foods has proceeded swiftly, especially in the US where the vast majority of soybeans, corn and cotton have been genetically altered.

By 1997, the problems inherent in the patenting of these GM crops had already begun to surface in Saskatchewan, Canada. It was in the sleepy town of Bruno that a canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, found that a variety of GM canola known as “Roundup Ready” had infected his fields, mixing with his non-GM crop.[4] Amazingly, Monsanto, the agrichemical company that owned the Roundup Ready patent, sued Schmeiser for infringing their patent. After a years-long legal battle against the multinational that threatened to bankrupt his small farming operation, Schmeiser finally won an out-of-court settlement with Monsanto that saw the company agree to pay for the clean-up costs associated with the contamination of his field.

In India, tens of thousands of farmers per year commited suicide[5] in an epidemic labeled the GM genocide.[6] Sold a story of “magic seeds” that would produce immense yields, farmers around the country were driven into ruinous debt by a combination of high-priced seeds, high-priced pesticides, and crop failure. Worst of all, the GM seeds had been engineered with so-called “terminator technology,” meaning that seeds from one harvest could not be re-planted the following year. Instead, farmers were forced to buy seeds at the same exorbitant prices from the biotech giants every year, insuring a debt spiral that was impossible to escape. As a result, hundreds of thousands of farmers have committed suicide in the Indian countryside since the introduction of GM crops in 1997.

As philosopher, quantum physicist and activist Vandana Shiva has detailed at great length, the effect of the invocation of intellectual property in enabling the monopolization of the world’s most fundamental resources was not accidental or contingent.[7] On the contrary, this is something that has been self-consciously designed by the heads of the very corporations who now seek to reap the benefit of this monopolization, and the monumental nature of their achievement has been obscured behind bureaucratic institutions like the WTO and innocuous sounding agreements like the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

Although the deck appears to be stacked in favour of the giant multinationals and their practically inexhaustible access to lobbying and legal funds, the people are by no means incapable of fighting back against this patenting of the biosphere.

In India itself, where so much devestation has been wrought by the introduction of genetically engineered crops, the people are fighting back against the world’s most well-known purveyor of GMO foods, Monsanto. The country’s National Biodiversity Diversity Authority has enabled the government to proceed with legal action against the company for so-called biopiracy, or attempting to develop a GM crop derived from local varieties of eggplant, without the appropriate licences.[8]

Although resistance to the patenting of the world’s food supply should be applauded in all its forms, what is needed is a fundamental transformation in our understanding of life itself from a patentable organism to the common property of all of the peoples who have developed the seeds from which these novel GM crops are derived.

This concept, known as open seeds, is being promoted by organizations around the globe, including Dr. Vandana Shiva’s Navdanya organization.[9]




Top of Form

January 10, 2012

Ms. Sheree Krider
70 Mammoth Cave Loop Road
Cave City, KY  42127

Ms. Krider:

Thank you for contacting the office of Governor Beshear with your thoughts. 

Kentucky’s adopted Flag Code specifically identifies those circumstances under which the Governor may order the state flag to be flown at half-staff.  It restricts the Governor’s action to fallen members of the military or Kentucky National Guard or in the event of the death of a present or former official of Kentucky government.

The Governor has released the following statement in recognition of Mr. Galbraith’s accomplishments.  “Jane and I were shocked and saddened to learn of Gatewood’s passing.  He was a gutsy, articulate and passionate advocate who never shied away from a challenge or potential controversy.  His runs for office prove he was willing to do more than just argue about the best direction for the state – he was willing to serve, and was keenly interested in discussing issues directly with our citizens.  He will be missed.” 

Thank you again and please do not hesitate to contact Governor Beshear when an issue is important to you.


Virginia E. Graves
Director of Constituent Services



Galbraith gets 5,000 signatures for governor run

By ROGER ALFORD — Associated Press

Posted: 11:03am on May 27, 2011; Modified: 1:05pm on May 27, 2011

FRANKFORT, Ky. — In a move that has helped to organize supporters, independent gubernatorial candidate Gatewood Galbraith said Friday he now has the 5,000 signatures needed to get his name put on the general election ballot in Kentucky.

Galbraith, a Lexington attorney, said he intends to collect another 5,000 signatures before turning them over to the secretary of state’s office to officially enter the race against Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear and Republican nominee David Williams, just in case the opposing campaigns challenge the eligibility of some of the people who signed.

Last December, Galbraith filed paperwork declaring his intent to enter the race for governor. Under Kentucky law, independent candidates also must collect at least 5,000 signatures from registered voters, which, Galbraith said, isn’t as easy as it may sound.

“There’s no doubt; it’s a burden,” he told The Associated Press on Friday. “But I understand there needs to be a threshold so the ballot doesn’t become overcrowded. That’s the rule in place, and we’re going to comply with it.”

Galbraith said collecting the signatures has strengthened his campaign by energizing supporters and establishing grassroots organizations in the majority of Kentucky counties.

“It’s a natural organizing tool,” he said.

Early on, Galbraith differentiated himself from the other gubernatorial candidates by taking a strong stand against mountaintop removal coal mining, charging that it has caused “unsurpassed environmental damage” in Appalachia and should not be permitted to continue.

Both Beshear and Williams have called for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ease restrictions that have made it difficult for coal companies to get governmental permission to open new mountaintop mines or to expand existing ones.

Galbraith had received an early endorsement from the United Mine Workers of America, only to have it rescinded later. Union leaders opted to instead support Beshear, who they believed had a better chance of winning the Nov. 8 election.

Mountaintop removal has long been a heated issue in Kentucky politics. Demonstrators have been sitting outside Beshear’s office each Thursday to bring attention to the procedure, in which forests are cleared and rock is blasted apart to get to coal buried underneath. The leftover dirt, rock and rubble usually is dumped into nearby valleys. Coal operators say it is the most effective way to get to the coal, while environmentalists say it does irreversible damage.

Frankfort resident Angela Mitchell, a solitary protester who sat outside Beshear’s office for two hours on Thursday, said she’s a likely Galbraith supporter.

“I don’t’ feel like we’re getting anywhere with the other two candidates, so maybe it’s time for a change,” she said.

Galbraith also stands apart from Beshear and Williams as a proponent of legalizing hemp and medicinal marijuana, positions that have marginalized him for mainstream Kentucky voters in four previous runs for governor.

Since announcing his interest in running again, Galbraith has downplayed the marijuana issue, saying it’s only a minor part of his platform.

Galbraith said he believes he can win the general election against much better-funded candidates. Williams raised some $1.2 million for the primary election race that he won earlier this month. Beshear has raised about $5 million and is already on the air with the first television ad of the general election season.

“It doesn’t make any difference how much money Gov. Beshear spends,” Galbraith said. “If your vote’s not for sale, it doesn’t matter how much he spends.”

Read more:

1995 Report to the Governor’s Hemp and Related Fiber Crops Task Force

June 1, 1995
Report to the Governor’s Hemp and Related Fiber Crops Task Force
by admin

Edited by Sara McNulty, June 1995
Table of Contents

Historical Overview of Three Bast Fibers
Agronomic Aspects of Fiber Crops
Hemp Production
Hemp License Procurement
Agronomic Feasibility of Growing Kenaf in the Southeast
Fiber Flax

[The remainder is not yet included in this file.]

Appendix A Governor’s Executive Order and Task Force
Appendix B Procedure for Hemp License Application
Appendix C Hemp Marketing Committee Summary
Appendix E Hemp Bibliography
Appendix G Contacts


Most analysts forecast long-term increases in world demand for all types of fibrous materials, and some predict limitations in production capacity. New fiber crops, new industrial uses of non-wood fibers, and agricultural diversification in general are therefore subjects of widespread interest. Kentucky agriculture is not alone in efforts to pursue these possibilities, and will be required to compete with producers in other states and nations.

Kentucky history, as well as recent research in other temperate zone countries, demonstrates that hemp can be produced in the Commonwealth. Selection of adapted varieties, crop management practices, harvesting technology and several other agronomic aspects may require a significant research and development effort if hemp is to be a large scale crop. Yet there is no reason to believe that these production issues are insurmountable.

The historical advantages (for example: favorable climate, naturally fertile soils, labor supply) held by Kentucky hemp producers, particularly hemp seed producers, have been made somewhat less important by modern agronomic technology.

Hemp and kenaf may have a slight advantage over certain other annual row crops with regard to potential environmental impacts. This might result from projected requirements for less pesticide and modest reductions in soil erosion.

Currently, established markets for hemp in the U.S. are generally limited to specialty/novelty textiles, oils, foods, paper and other materials. The specialized nature of this market does not require competition with other fiber sources. The potential market size is difficult to predict, but it is unlikely to support the large acreage of a major new field crop.

Bast fibers contribute an exceedingly small fraction of world textile fiber supply, which is overwhelmingly dominated by cotton. Increasing world demand and price for cotton in recent years has generated some interest in alternative fibers. However, extraction and processing of bast fibers for high quality textiles is more difficult than for cotton. A large investment, and perhaps some technological innovation, will be required by the textile industry if bast fibers are to become competitive as mass market textiles.

Use of annual fiber crops for most paper applications for for building materials, as a substitute for wood or recycled fiber, could create a very large but relatively low value market. Crop prices above $60/ton would probably be required to interest most producers; this price might preclude extensive competition in this market. Vast quantities of fibrous waste materials (sugar cane bagasse, straw) are available world wide and would also compete for such applications.

A large and long-term USDA effort on kenaf has addressed many production and processing challenges. Infrastructure for significant utilization of kenaf fiber is beginning to develop in the southern U.S. The University of Kentucky College of Agriculture is actively investigating kenaf production. Development of this alternative fiber crop in Kentucky will be dependent on nearby location of processing facilities and a profitable market for farmers.

Legal prohibition of Cannabis cultivation is the overriding obstacle to reintroduction of fiber hemp production in Kentucky. Significant progress on agronomic, marketing, or infrastructure development is unlikely, and of relatively little importance, unless legal issues are resolved. Legislative action would be required at both the state and federal level Such consideration would likely receive strong diverse reactions from both private and public sectors.
Editor’s Preface

Frequently during the past six months, many colleagues and friends have asked why I became involved with the Kentucky Governor’s Hemp and Related Fiber Crops Task Force. In response I replied, “Curiosity.” With my lifelong work in Kentucky agriculture and my academic work in folk studies, I believed this hemp project would appeal to both of my principal interests.

In 1994 my friend Billy Joe Miles told me Kentucky Governor Brereton Jones had asked him to chair a task force on the feasibility of growing hemp and related fibers as a cash crop for Kentucky farmers. Several weeks later, I called Miles and asked him if I could sit in on the next meeting; he consented and later called me with the November meeting date. A few minutes after Chairman Miles called the meeting to order, he asked me to write minutes for the meeting-and so, the adventure began.

After the meeting Miles gave me the names of several Kentucky industries to call. From December 1994 until mid-February 1995 Miles and I worked steadily gathering information about hemp. As I traversed the United States by telephone and fax, I discovered that one informant usually led to three more.

From the beginning of this project, I realized that many popular publications about hemp contain inaccurate statements; thus, separating fact from fiction presented a challenge the first month. Documented, valid information provided the key for Task Force members to reach decisions they believe will best serve Kentucky farmers. Even though many of our state’s farmers are skilled and well-informed, farmers rely on the judgments of agricultural leaders to guide them concerning new crops and cultivation practices. Throughout this project, my greatest concern has been protecting Kentucky’s small farmer.

The principal problem I confronted during this project has been the emotional response many pro-hemp supporters exhibit. Although exuberance is important when promoting a product or an idea, when emotional involvement overshadows objectivity, speakers and writers may simply lift statements out of context and use them to support various claims. After working on this project for seven months, I can assure you that everything you need to know about hemp is available at the National Agriculture Library, the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the European Studies of bast fibers. There are no secrets; no governmental agency has destroyed needed records. Furthermore, United States industry is well-informed and extremely helpful. Other fibers discussed here work as well or better than hemp in most applications.

Mainly through telephone conversations, I have met many helpful, friendly, well-informed people. Their discussions ranged from problems with growing hemp test plots; to textile importation mishaps; to all the things that hemp, if an infrastructure were in place, could become through United States technology. I want to extend my thanks to each person involved in this project. Through sharing professional perspectives and concerns, each informant helped to provide a piece of this research project. (See Appendix G Contacts)

Throughout the course of this project seven persons deserve special recognition because they formed an integral part of my research strategies and because we became a team. Each person listed impressed me with personal integrity, professional expertise, and a remarkable sense of humor.

Billy Joe Miles, my friend and later my supervisor, allowed me the freedom to explore bast fibers in North America and abroad. He kept his fax machine connected when I showered him with research updates as well as research frustrations.

Frank Aiocio, Jr. tirelessly instructed me about key issues surrounding marketing non-wood fibers in the United States and around the world. As a hemp grower and processor in Spain, Riccio quickly dispelled inaccurate information about hemp and introduced me to the experts in the pulp and paper industry, in the non-wood fibers industries, and the United States Department of Agriculture.

Jim Claycomb and I received barrages of pro and con articles about hemp, kept each other abreast of the latest reports, compared notes, and became sounding boards for each other, occasionally trying to make sense of out nonsense. He provided me a direct guide to state government services useful to this project.

Christie Bohling, touted in the U.S. hemp industries as the queen of hemp, provided me a panorama of the hemp-related industries. Given her knowledge of and involvement with hemp products for a number of years, Bohling is acutely aware of issues facing hemp industries in the United States and communicates those issues clearly and forcefully.

Jay Jeyasingam gave me my first crash course in hemp and pulp and paper making. During his long career as pulp and paper consultant, he has worked with hemp, kenaf, and other fibers in many countries throughout the world.

Gero Leson, too, clarified many issues about German markets and research developments with flax and hemp. Leson provided hours of discussion not only about specific projects and lectures at the Frankfurt, Germany, BIORESOURCE HEMP Symposium, but also presented an objective comparison of hemp with other fibers in the European community. Conversations with Leson broadened my limited understanding of environmental issues concerning wood and non-wood fibers in the United States and Europe.

Scott Smith and I became acquainted as we flew to Minnesota the North American Industrial Hemp Forum in late March l995. Indeed, Smith’s common sense approach to hemp as a Kentucky crop proved refreshing, and his knowledge of reintroducing crops benefited me practically as a farmer considering new crops. As Smith and I planned the format for the report, he proved invaluable in keeping the focus on agriculture rather than anthropology.

Governor Brereton C. Jones and state agricultural leaders continually seek new crops that will ensure profits to Kentucky farmers, Tobacco, Kentucky’s most lucrative cash crop, faces an uncertain future in the United States. After several of Kentucky’s pro-hemp supporters approached him, Jones decided a task force should investigate the feasibility of raising hemp. Following discussions of these proposals with Kentucky’s agricultural leaders, by KKS 12.029 Governor Jones formed a Task Force to study hemp and other fiber crops. (See Appendix A Governor’s Executive Order and Task Force Membership.)

The Governor’s executive order included the following mission statement adjuring the Task Force:

1. to identify and report on the current legal use and potential legal use of hemp and related fiber crops for commercial enterprise purposes 2. to provide an overview of the historical uses of hemp and related fiber crops prior to 1937 as well as its contemporaneous legal use in other countries and corresponding programs for monitoring uses 3. to identify methods of selective breeding of hemp plants and related fiber crops for the purpose of removing or producing low levels of tetrahydrocannibinol 4. to identify and report on manufacturers in the United States which currently use hemp-based and related fiber crops 5. to determine the marketability and economic competitiveness of products made from hemp and related fiber crops and to identify the technology needed for growing and processing these plants 6. to work with the executive and legislative branches on legislation, policies, and programs for promoting a concerted effort to study hemp and related fiber crops as supplemental crops to tobacco. 7. and to develop recommendations for research programs and a budget request for continued study of the potential developmental uses for hemp and related fiber crops.

The Hemp and Related Fiber Task Force first met 23 November 1994. Chairman Billy Joe Miles appointed two committees for investigating legal issues concerning growing and marketing hemp. Chairman Miles emphasized the importance of being well informed about legal issues and stressed that test plots would be planted only with legal clearance at both federal and state levels. Before the end of that session, Miles noted that if a hemp market could not sustain Kentucky farmers, then he saw no reason to ask Kentucky’s legislature to amend statutes or seek federal permits to grow hemp test plots. In subsequent months, the Legal Committee explored state and federal laws while the Marketing Committee investigated four potential markets using hemp: fabric, pulp and paper, seed and oil, and building materials. (See Appendix C Hemp Marketing Committee Summary)

Early in March 1995 Attorney General Chris Gorman ruled that at both federal and state levels all species of Cannabis sativa L. are illegal. Gorman told Miles that because federal and state governments regard hemp as an illegal product, our Task Force could not seek a permit to raise hemp test plots. In the United States because of (a) increased concern expressed by environmental groups about forest resources and endangered species, and (b) industry’s desire to use recycled fibers and post-consumer wastes, non-wood fibers have the potential to become an important manufacturing resource. This manuscript describes the agronomics and marketing possibilities for three bast fibers that can grow in Kentucky soils: hemp, flax, and kenaf. Proponents of hemp and flax hope to revitalize these crops and develop new markets for them; kenaf supporters aspire to develop markets for this new fiber.
Historical Overview of Three Bast Fibers

Submitted by Sara McNulty

Archaeologists dispute the origins of flax. Some believe flax came from Tepe Sabz, Iran (then Mesopotamia, now Iran) 5500 to 5000 B.C.E. Seeds discovered from this period reveal a select variety and indicate irrigation as part of cultivation practice. Traces of flax were unearthed in the Swiss Lake Dwellers. By 4,000 B.C.E. Egyptians-cultivated and processed flax. Ancient records and wall carvings show laborers harvesting flax. Among the Egyptians, flax weaving varied from coarse, textured material to fine, elegant linen used in burial wrappings.

Around 1100 B.C.E. the Phoenicians introduced flax cultivation and linen weaving into western Europe. Charlemagne (AD 742-814 C.E.) issued an edict requiring every family in Belgium to grow and process flax. In the beginning this flax was used mainly for the home, but later became the heart of a sophisticated industry filled with tradition; often the business was handed down from father to son. Thus Belgium became noted for its linen industry. During the 1700s Russia began cultivating and processing flax and soon dominated the market because of large areas suitable for growing flax and, because of cheap labor.

In the United States early colonists brought flax seeds with them. In addition to home use, flax fiber and tow provided the materials needed to manufacture cotton bale covering and ties. Before long, jute replaced flax for cotton bale covering because of its strength and lower cost per unit.

The Willamette Valley of Oregon pushed to develop a flax industry even though the state offered subsidies to the farmer, production was not profitable.

During World War II, because of a flax shortage, the United States government encouraged flax cultivation and processing and provided most of the funding to build two new scutching mills. After the war the industry dwindled because of high labor costs and the absence of a large domestic market.

Although no one knows the exact origin of hemp, some scholars contend that hemp production began in central Asia; others credit China. Indeed Chinese records describe cultivating and processing hemp fiber as early as 2700 B.C.E.

Historical documents written around 470 B.C.E. mentioned that the Thracians and the Scythions used hemp for rope and cloth. As the Scythions migrated into Europe they brought hemp with them. The writings of Tragas in 1530 C.E. reveal that Europeans cultivated hemp for fiber and harvested seed for human consumption. Discorides named the plant and recorded medicinal properties

of hemp as well as fiber uses. Diaries from Spanish explorations documented that Spaniards took hemp into Chile in 1545. Even though production was small, hemp remained significant in agriculture and industry.

When explorers reached American shores, many of their accounts noted wild hemp growing in the forests. The hemp referred to in these journals was a fibrous plant Native Americans used in weaving baskets and textiles, not Cannabis sativa. Entrepreneurs experimented with several native fibers for cultivation and manufacturing. For example, Virginians promoted “silk grass” and Mississippians “enequen”. Colonists soon learned these fibers could not compete with European flax and hemp applications.

Because hemp was essential to the British maritime industry, early colonists brought seed with them to America. Fortunately, the fiber adapted to our climate and soil conditions. Colonists used the fiber in the home as well as in industry.

Although Jamestown colonists wanted to grow hemp and flax on a commercial basis, John Rolf reported that these experiments proved unsuccessful. Because Virginia Company and the English government discouraged growing tobacco, in 1619 England sent settlers to Virginia specifically to cultivate crops (flax, hemp, silk grass, and silk) other then tobacco and produce commodities. That same year through English legislation, Virginia Company tried, but failed to force colonists to grow hemp and flax, but were unsuccessful. Flax and hemp remained in cultivation, but for local use, Nevertheless, the Virginia Company officials continued to discourage tobacco growing and to promote flax and hemp. In 1663 the Assembly required farmers to plant flax and hemp, but this plan failed because of limited seed supply.

Charles II endorsed flax, hemp, and silk production rather than “the precarious and immoral tobacco industry.” Even though a number of planters from Virginia and Maryland followed this trend, the program failed. (Hopkins 1951)

Sometime in the late 1600’s Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia adopted laws making hemp and other staples legal tender. Thus, production of those commodities increased, thereby relieving the money shortage.

Colonial legislation offered subsidies for the cultivation and manufacturing of flax and hemp. In 1671 Maryland offered one pound of tobacco for every pound of hemp in the colony in an effort to stop importing-commodities that could be raised and manufactured in Maryland. After 1680 England stopped trying to discourage tobacco growing, but did continue promoting fibers from the colonies so as not to be dependent on foreign countries. Massachusetts, in 1700, required cordage manufactures to use fiber raised in the colony. Other colonies began subsidy programs because England began providing subsidies to naval store producers. Some colonies offered subsidies as a means of attracting immigrants into various unsettled regions. During 1767 Georgia distributed free flax and hemp seeds as well as manuals describing harvest procedures for the fibers.

By 1775 Hemp grew in Kentucky. At first hemp mainly was used by settlers but soon an export trade developed in New Orleans. The Pickney Treaty of 1795 opened the Lower Mississippi to Kentucky trade. Loose bundles or bales of hemp were taken to The Kentucky River and shipped down river where hemp was made into rope or bagging for cotton. Because of the European Wars from 1803-1805 Congress issued the Embargo and Non-importation Acts thus stopping foreign shipments of hemp. Kentucky’s hemp industry flourished. The drought of 1854 resulted in a total crop failure and required importation of thousands of bushels of hemp seed from France for the new planting season.

This prosperous era caused American hemp and hempen products to be sold at high prices. As a result small amounts of sisal from Mexico and abaca from the Philippines, cheaper and superior in application to Kentucky grown hemp, trickled into American commerce. The Civil War devastated the Kentucky hemp industry because the industry depended on slave labor to grow and break the crop. After the war Congress provided subsidies for hemp hoping to revitalize the industry. But with the superiority of imported fibers and iron ties being used to bind bales the industry dwindled.

Between 1914 and 1933, 33 states enacted laws prohibiting growing hemp for anything other than medicinal and industrial fiber purposes. In 1937 Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act which restricted possession to those who legally bought a tax stamp, authorized medical and industrial use.

Early in 1941, with the coming of World War II, federal authorities attempted to revitalize hemp, especially Kentucky hemp. At this time the need for hemp fiber and seed increased dramatically. Kentucky agricultural leaders hoped this renewed interest would help restore the hemp industry. Planners from the USDA and War Production Board structured a war industry instead of utilizing the small existing private industry. The United States Department of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit Corporation controlled policy.

Because of government intervention and the intensive labor it required the majority of farmers did not want to grow this crop. Thus, the industry virtually disappeared after the war. Later in 1970 the 1937 tax was repealed and the provisions of Tile 11 (The Controlled Substances Act) of P.L. 91-513, The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, made possession of marijuana illegal except for authorized experimental purposes.

Scholars conclude kenaf originated in Africa. Historical documents mention kenaf as early as 4,000 B.C.E. in western Sudan. In Africa the plant was used for fiber and the leaves for food.

Our term kenaf probably originated with the Persians who used this word to describe the plant Hibiscus cannibinus L., which they used for pulp and fiber. In 1937 researchers Miyake and Suzuta compiled a list of 129 names for various kenaf plants. For example, in India the common name is mesta; in Taiwan, ambari. In this report, kenaf means or refers to Hibiscus cannibinus L.

In the eighteenth century, Sir William Roxburg (1759-1819) conducted experiments with kenaf in India where it was widely used as a substitute for European hemp. In India its main use was for cordage, rope, twine, and sackcloth. Between 1920-1925 the USSR conducted a massive study of fiber crops; their research proved so promising that the initial study spawned a 20 year study. The USSR introduced kenaf into China in the mid-1930s. By the late 1950s China became the world’s largest producer of kenaf fiber.

Because of the jute shortage caused by World War II, the United States began testing other fibers as substitutes in the cordage industry. At the time, both researchers and manufacturers favored kenaf because of its adaptability. In 1942 kenaf research intensified when the United States Department of Agriculture and other agencies, such as the is Cooperative Fiber Commission, embarked upon a joint study with Americans and Cubans, a study which resulted in the development of new high-yielding, disease-resistant varieties. Later, the U.S. Point IV Program in Guatemala produced photosensitive kenaf verities. Then, researchers at the Everglades Experiment Station, Belle Glade, Florida and the USDA kenaf studied 15 years additional years. (Dempsey 1975)

In 1957 the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA, Northern Utilization Research and Development Division at Peoria, Illinois, launched a study to find new fiber crops. This new crop would replace surplus crops and have potential in industrial applications. In particular the Peoria lab studied fiber crops as raw materials for pulp and paper applications. Over ten years, researchers considered 1,200 samples from 600 plant species. After considerable screening they chose six plants for further study: kenaf, bamboo, crotelaria (sunn hemp), roselle, seabassia and the sorghums. Of the six, kenaf and crotelaria proved most favorable. Because kenaf produced higher yields of solid material per acre than crotelaria, researchers selected kenaf for further study in growing and pulping (this study emphasized pulping the whole raw stalk.)

Currently the USDA continues funding kenaf research for applications using the fiber as a supplementary raw material. There are four kenaf separations plants in operation. (Atchison, 1994)

Atchison, Joseph. 1994. Present Status and Future Prospects for Use of Non-Wood Plant Fibers for Paper Grade Pulpa. AF&PA’s 1994 Pulp and Fiber Fall Seminar. Tucson, Arizona.

Dempsey, J.M. 1975 Fiber Crops. University of Florida Press. Gainsville Florida.

Hopkins, James. 1951. History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky. University of Kentucky Press. Lexington, Kentucky.

Marshall G. 1988. Flax: Breeding and Utilization. The Commission of the European Communities. The Netherlands.

Weindling, Ludwig. 1947. Long Vegetable Fibers. Columbia University Press. New York.
Agronomic Aspects of Fiber Crops

Submitted by Scott Smith

In promoting the diversification of Kentucky agriculture, there are several good reasons to consider the potential of fiber crops. World demand for fiber is currently strong and over the long term is projected to increase in all areas of application: textiles, building materials, and paper/pulp. Fiber demand will be closely linked to global economic development. Depletion of forest resources in some regions, and competing demands on forests for habitat and wilderness preservation in other locales have raised doubts that forests will continue to provide adequate supply of pulpwood at reasonable cost. While agricultural diversification is an objective shared by most states and nations, current concerns about the future of tobacco production in Kentucky have perhaps stimulated more interest here than elsewhere.

Types of Fiber Crops: A large number of plants around the World have been used for fiber. Kirby (1963)classifies these as follows:

Seed fibers: cotton, kapok,

fibers on the seeds or inner walls of the fruit; Bast fibers: flax, hemp, jute, ramie, kenaf,

fibers from the inner bast or bark of the stem; Leaf fibers: abaca, manila hemp, henequen,

fibers from the vascular tissue of the leaves; Woody fibers: wood pulp fiber,

fibers from the stem of trees; Miscellaneous fibers: examples: coir from coconut, whisks from various stems, roots and other plant parts.

Cotton: Cotton dominates world markets for textile fiber crops (See Table). U.S. production of cotton has increased greatly over the last few years because of high prices and strong demand. Cotton production has returned to some areas of the mid-South, for example North Carolina, from which it had all but disappeared. Cotton was grown in Kentucky in the past and there may be some potential for competitive production, but only in the southwestern part of the Commonwealth. (Recent reports indicate that small areas of cotton are being planted in Kentucky this year.) This report will not deal further with cotton because of its restricted potential and because voluminous information is available from other sources on its production, processing and marketing.
World Production of Vegetable Fiber, 1992

Crop 1,000 metric tonnes

Cotton 18,069

Jute 3,530

Flax 610

Sisal 383

Hemp 124

FAO (1993), from Reichert (1994)

Bast fibers: Bast fibers are currently under intensive evaluation as supplemental crops for several reasons. Some are highly productive, as a group they are suitable for a wide variety of applications, and at least three (hemp, kenaf, and flax) are potentially adaptable to commercial production in the continental U.S. These three crops will be considered in more detail in this report. None of the three can accurately be described as new crops. Kenaf has long been cultivated in Asia and Africa, and it was evaluated on an experimental basis in the U.S. during World War II. Flax and hemp have been grown in the U.S. since colonial times.

Considerations for introduction of new crops: By some indices, Kentucky already has a well diversified agricultural economy. Animal and crop production are approximately equal in gross sales. Furthermore, crop production is reasonably well balanced between grain crops and non-grains. However, non-grain crops sales are overwhelmingly dominated by tobacco. Farm sales of burley and dark tobacco have approached one billion dollars per year for much of the past decade. Concerns about the future of this crop, in the face of continuing social and political pressures and global competition, provide Kentucky with additional motivation to diversify crop production.

Few, if any, crops offer a likely alternative to tobacco with respect to agronomic, economic and sociological considerations. Tobacco is a high value, high labor, relatively low risk crop that can be profitably produced by very small and rather large land holders. Tobacco explains why Kentucky has one of the nations highest ratios of farm numbers to total population, and it has a profound effect on rural economies and communities. It is unlikely that fiber crops would be produced by nearly as many farmers, or that the return relative to out-of-pocket costs would be comparable. Because of differences in production technology and labor requirements, it is probable that only a small fraction of those now producing tobacco would be interested in fiber crops, even if market demand were sufficient.

Therefore, fiber crops should be evaluated as a supplemental opportunity to diversify farming in Kentucky rather than as an alternative to tobacco.

Given favorable conditions, adoption of new crops may be rapid and extensive. Introduction of soybean cultivation throughout the grain producing regions of the U.S. provides the most dramatic example. However, successful new crop introductions are certainly out numbered by new crops for which adoption has been unsuccessful, or extremely limited. A host of factors may act against the adoption of a new or supplemental crop. Before committing to a new crop enterprise a farmer will expect satisfactory answers to at least these questions:

How do I grow it?

What do I need to buy to grow it?

What yield can I expect?

Where am I going to sell it?

What price will it bring?

Only two of these are strictly agronomic. Innumerable production problems may limit new crop adoption: poorly adapted crop varieties, local pest problems or lack of registered chemical controls, climatic limitations, soil and fertility restrictions, incompatibility with existing cropping systems, labor requirements, production machinery unavailable or cost-prohibitive. Yet, such factors may be more easily addressed and more controllable than economic and market limitations. Success of a new crop requires coordinated development of production, markets, and all of the infrastructure required to bring crops to a market, for example; storage, transportation, and processing facilities.
Hemp Production

Submitted by Scott smith
I. The Hemp Plant

The term hemp commonly refers both to a class of fibers and to a plant. Fibers from several plants other than true hemp are called hemp. This includes Mani

la hemp (from Musa), sunn hemp (Crotolaria) and sisal hemp (Agave). Both the plant Cannabis sativa and the fiber derived from it are often called true hemp. These various plants are related only in that they produce strong fibers which have historically been used for cordage. The discussion in this section will be limited to Cannabis sativa.

Hemp vs. marijuana: Marijuana and hemp are the same plant species, that is, Cannabis sativa L. The two terms define a difference primarily with regard to the intended application of the plant; marijuana generally designating a narcotic use and hemp designating a fiber application. Throughout this report, the terms marijuana and hemp are used in this sense. As commonly cultivated, there are differences between marijuana and fiber hemp. An appropriate analogy would be the contrast between sweet corn and corn grown for silage or feed. In both cases, genetically different varieties of a single plant species have been bred to improve characteristics for the intended application. Also in both cases, the varieties are commonly grown under different cultural conditions to favor the desired plant characteristics.

Fiber production by hemp is maximized by very dense planting. This increases the ratio of stalk to leaves and flowers.

Marijuana is best grown at a low density which favors a bushy plant with high production of leaves and flowers. Plant structure and geometry is therefore visibly different in typical fiber hemp and marijuana fields. However, isolated, individual plants of the two types cannot be reliably distinguished by sight alone.

THC: The psychoactive narcotic ingredient in Cannabis is delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Cultivated marijuana is commonly observed to contain 3% to 5% THC (by dry weight), but higher and lower values are possible. Selected fiber hemp cultivars now grown in Europe generally contain 1/10 or less of this concentration. In some European markets, a standard of 0.3% maximum THC content has been accepted for hemp. Genotypes of Kentucky hemp cultivated in years past are reported to be near the same range of THC content as are modern hemp varieties, but this is apparently not well documented.

Some authorities have speculated that fiber hemp with a THC concentration of 0.1% to 0.3% would have significant potential for narcotic applications. THC concentrations are commonly expressed on a whole plant basis. Selected parts of the plant (for example, buds) would have significantly higher THC levels. It should also be noted that THC might be efficiently extracted and concentrated even from low THC varieties by relatively simple methods. Also, some subjects may have a significant psychoactive response to THC concentrations of 0.1 to 0.3%.

(Communication from Dr. M.A. Elsohly, Director, National Institute of Drug Abuse Marijuana Project, University of Mississippi.)

Genetic selection of Cannabis with true zero concentration of THC and other cannabinoid compounds should be possible, either by conventional plant breeding methods or modern biotechnology approaches. In fact, it has been reported that such germplasm has been developed in some hemp breeding programs. We do not know what methods were used to measure cannabinoids in these genotypes, nor whether these results have been confirmed.

Plant structure: Hemp forms a tall, woody stem which is the basis for its value as a fiber source. Fiber hemp is typically 6 to 12 feet in height. Much taller and shorter stature has been reported; undoubtedly height will be dependent on both plant genetics and environmental conditions. The stems of many varieties are hexagonal and hollow. The complex structure of the stem includes a woody core which is high in lignin and on processing becomes the material known as hurds. The outermost layers of the stem include bark and cortex cells holding chlorophyll. Underlying the epidermis of the bark are many very long, high cellulose cells. Bundles of these cells make up the primary bast fibers of hemp.

Climatic, environmental adaptation: Cannabis will grow under a wide variety of climates ranging from the tropics to northern temperate regions. Reichert (1994) states that it grows best between 14 and 27 C, while Dempsey (1975) gives a temperature range of 13 to 22 C. It is reported to be resistant to moderate frost, and so can be planted early in northern latitudes. Most authors emphasize that humid, or at least drought-free conditions are critical for high yields.

New plantings are said to be particularly susceptible to drought damage.

A growing season of roughly 120 days was required for production of hemp for fiber in Kentucky. This is consistent with recent reports from Canada and northern Europe. Apparently, in southern Europe growing seasons may be as short as 90 days, perhaps because of selection of rapidly maturing varieties. Seed maturation requires an additional 30 to 45 days. This long season explains the continued prominence of Kentucky in hemp seed production during the first part of this century when more northerly states had become larger producers of hemp fiber. The lower probability of drought stress in some more northerly locations may continue to provide these regions with a competitive advantage over Kentucky and the South for fiber production. However, Canada and northern states would be unlikely locations for seed production.

Hemp is a short-day, photoperiod sensitive annual species. Therefore, it must be planted early (in the Northern Hemisphere) to avoid premature flowering and seed set. Most varieties are likely to mature in early fall in northern temperate regions.

Genetics: de Meijer (1994) provides a thorough and current review of Cannabis breeding, germplasm collections and genetics. There are several active germplasm collections in Europe, the largest including those at the Vavilov Research Institute in St. Petersburg, the “Fleischmann Rudolf” Agricultural Institute in Hungary, and the collection developed by de Meijer at Wageningen in The Netherlands. de Meijer refers to cultivars from France, Italy, Hungary, Rumania, Poland, and the former USSR. However, it is not clear how many of these are recent selections. Reportedly a few germplasm collections (licensed or unlicensed) are being maintained in North America but these are undoubtedly quite limited. European germplasm plus local collection of feral hemp should provide a reasonable base for initiation of breeding programs.

Hemp is dioecious; male and female flowers are typically borne on separate plants. For optimum production of the cannabinoid resins, male (staminate) plants are eliminated to prevent fertilization of the pistillate plants. For seed production male plants are greatly reduced in number. Monoecious varieties should be desirable for fiber production, and several such varieties have been developed in Europe. These should have advantages in uniformity of quality, productivity and maturity yet dioecious hemp is still produced in many parts of the World.
II. Cultivation Practices

Seeding: Dempsey (1975) reports that recommended seeding rates vary greatly with region of production, ranging from about 35 to 135 pounds per acre. This is said to result in a plant density of 19 to 70 plants per square foot. Low (1994) seeded at 50 kg/ha. This high density would be appropriate only for fiber hemp. For seed production desired plant densities would be about 1/10 as great.

Seed is typically drilled to a depth of¾ to 1 ½ inches in row spacings of 2 to 6 inches. This would require only equipment already available to most crop producers.

Early seeding is generally practiced for hemp. Dempsey indicates early to mid-March for northern temperate regions. Early April seeding was recommended for Kentucky fiber hemp, middle to late April for seed (Dep. of Agricultural Education, 1943). Early seeding would increase the probability of avoiding summer drought in Kentucky. Little information is available on seed germination characteristics and seedling establishment. Dempsey (1975) reports some benefits of seed treatment with fungicides.

Soils and fertility: Early Kentucky publications recommend growing hemp only on the best available soils, and hemp is widely regarded as being a relatively sensitive crop to soil conditions. The most important reasons for this are likely to be intolerance of soil acidity, high nitrogen demand, and relatively high water use rates, In earlier times, when lime, commercial fertilizer and irrigation were rarely used at optimal rates by crop producers, Kentucky bottom lands or upland soils rotating out of pastures were considered outstanding sites for hemp culture. Under modern soil management practices, it is possible that other regions better suited to irrigation or having deeper soils with higher water storage capacity might have some competitive advantage over Kentucky.

Some recent popular reports have suggested that hemp can be easily grown organically, without fertilizer inputs. This is unlikely. Fiber hemp has a relatively high nutrient requirement. Dempsey (1975) includes a comparison of nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) withdrawal by hemp versus grain crops, showing a 2 to 10 fold greater demand by hemp. The value of this comparison is limited because it appears to include the complete above ground portion of the hemp plant, but only the grain tissue for the other crops. Reichert (1994) estimates that only about 30% of the accumulated nutrients would actually be removed in harvested stalks. Nevertheless, many experiments demonstrate that optimum yields require high nitrogen availability. Response to fertilizer by hemp generally appears comparable to corn; 100 to 175 pounds of N input per acre could be anticipated for high yielding circumstances.

Some authors consider hemp to be a soil-restoring or conserving crop. Like any closely spaced plant, hemp will greatly reduce soil erosion relative to bare ground. However, like any annual crop, its production requires soil to be exposed without vegetative cover for a portion of the year. So erosion would be greater under hemp than under pasture sod or most other perennial vegetation. With regard to soil conservation characteristics, hemp might be expected to have a modest advantage over corn because of plant spacing. However, other factors, particularly the ability to use modern conservation tillage methods, would greatly outweigh this difference.

Pests, pest control: Another common claim for hemp production is that no pesticides would be needed. Most authorities do agree that cultivated hemp is not susceptible to intense pressure from insects and diseases. A few fungi and insects known to attack hemp are mentioned by Dempsey(l975), but they are considered to be minor and infrequent problems. It is interesting to wonder if the cannabinoids, like many alkaloids and secondary plant products, are associated with pest resistance. If so, the widespread culture of very low cannabinoid varieties could eventually alter disease and insect relationships.

Hemp also appears to be relatively resistant to pressure from weed competitors. This is undoubtedly related to the rapid formation of a complete, dense crop canopy early in the season. In early Kentucky agriculture, hemp was considered a valuable segment of a rotation, in part due to its function as a smother crop. Broom rape and vines are most frequently mentioned as common weeds in hemp fields. Intensive preplant cultivation was recommended in the past. Clearly one benefit of this would be to control early season weed competition. Modern producers might choose to substitute herbicides for repeated tillage/cultivation. Low (1994) grew hemp in England with no herbicides and does not expect that they will be required.

Harvesting technology: Harvesting hemp for fiber or seed traditionally has been very labor intensive. Dew retting and braking stalks, as practiced in Kentucky, called for multiple tedious manipulations of the stalks after cutting.

Harvesting requirements will vary with the anticipated end use of the hemp. Pulp and fiberboard applications would require the least amount of on-farm processing and would probably allow the use of common farm equipment, like round balers and sicklebar mowers, with minor modification. If the long bast fibers must be preserved for textile use, some onfarm processing (retting) will probably be expected, and simple forage harvesting equipment may become unsuitable. Harvest for seed will require entirely different mechanization.

Harvesting the same plants for both fiber and seed, as some have proposed, would create a substantial challenge. In addition to the widely different “maturity” dates, different machinery and on-farm processing strategies probably would be required.
III. Yields, Returns, and Costs

Yields: Under favorable conditions, hemp is a productive species capable of rapidly generating large amounts of biomass. However, contrary to the implications of some popular reports, it is no more productive than many other annual crop species, and clearly produces less biomass than corn, sugar cane and kenaf.

Most recent studies report hemp yields of 5 to 15 metric tonnes per hectare. (Ten metric tonnes per hectare equals 4.465 US tons per acre.) Jeyasingam (1995) reports 8-10 metric tonnes per hectare for hemp and 15-18 for kenaf. van der Werf (1994) places maximum yields at 15 metric tonnes per hectare and van Dam (1995) reports the range to be 10 to 15 in the Netherlands. Low (1994) reports average yields consistently around 10 tonnes per hectare for a three year study in England. Yields in Canada in a first year trial were apparently significantly less (Reichert, Personal Communication). Comparison of yields is complicated by their inconsistent expression. The results above are assumed to be on the basis of dry weight of stalks.

Historical sources for Kentucky report fiber yields of 500 to 1200 pounds per acre. This is not outside the range reported by Dempsey (1975) 370 to 1,900 kilograms fiber per hectare (330 to 1697 pounds per acre). More recently Reichert (1994) reports 900 to 2,600 kilograms fiber per hectare.

Returns: Quoted unit prices for hemp are highly variable depending on the use of the fiber and the seed variety. Raw, dry defoliated stalks are priced at 60 to 125 dollars per metric tonnes by various sources. (However, current kenaf prices are below this range.) If yields range from 7 to 15 metric tonnes/hectare, this would provide a gross return ranging widely from $420/ha to $1875/ha ($170 to $759/acre) This can be compared to a gross return for corn expected to be in the range of $200 to $350/acre in Kentucky.

Returns for separated fiber components could be significantly higher. Reichert estimates the return for raw fiber to range from $28.

barley, 4,375 (2,500 lb), 1,905, 625, 700, 3,231

corn grain, 231 (110 bu), 155, 46, 32, 233

wheat/beans, 300 (45/28 bu), 149, 44, 37, 230

(double crop)

tomatoes, 2,430 (27 tons), 1,278, 154, 231, 1,663 (for processing)

fiber hemp: 170-759, 184, 46, 56, 286

hemp seed: 60-800, 98, 41, 56, 195

(For hemp, see explanation of returns above and cost details see below)

For all crops except hemp, source is U.K. Dep. of Agricultural Economics, ID-99, 1993. Estimated enterprise costs for hemp production (per acre) [in US$]

Seed costs Fiber Processing certified

$/acre, $/acre, $/acre

Variable costs

Seed (lbs) 40, 80.00 10, 20.00 10 , 20.00

Fertilizer 33.58, 33.58, 33.58

Lime (tons) 1, 10.82 1, 10.82 I, 10.82

Fuel, oil (hrs) 4.5, 16.02 2.2, 12.22 2.2, 12.22

Repairs, 9.35, 17.60, 17.60

Interest, 7.93, 4.24, 4.24

Total, 184.12, 98.46, 98.46

Fixed costs (Depreciation, taxes, insurance)

46.08, 41.25, 64.84

operator labor

Hours 8, 56.00 8, 56.00 10, 70.00

Total enterprise costs

296.20, 195.71, 233.30

Hemp costs as calculated by D. Spaulding et al.

Reichert, G. 1994. Hemp (Cannabis sativa 1.). Bi-weekly Bulletin. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Dempsey, J.M. 1975. Fiber Crops. University of Florida Press. Gainsville, Florida.

van der Werf, H.M.G. 1994. “Hemp Facts and Fiction.” Journal of the International Hemp Association. vol. 1

van Dam, H.E.G. 1995. Potentials of Hemp as Industrial Fibre Crop. Agrotechnical Research Institute, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Leson, G. 1995. Personal communication to Governor’s Hemp and Related Fiber Crops Task Force, summarizing BIORESOURCE HEMP Symposium in Frankfurt, Germany held March 1995.

Low, I. 1994. United Kingdom Hemp Production. Publication of Hemcore LTD.

Department of Agricultural Education. 1943. Hemp Production. Ky. Miscellaneous Publication 2626. College of Education, University of Kentucky.

Jeyasingam, J. 1995. “Hemp and Kenaf in Others Countries as Applies to Kentucky.” Correspondence.

Kirby, R.H. 1963. Vegetable Fibres: Botany, Cultivation, and Utilization. Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York.

de Meijer, E. 1994. Diversity in Cannabis. Thesis, Wageningen.
Hemp License Procurement

Submitted by Sara McNulty

Task Force Chairman Billy Joe Miles authorized Scott Smith, chairman of the agronomy Department at the University of Kentucky, to explore procedures for obtaining a license to produce hemp. Smith was informed by the United States Department of Agriculture that research and teaching institutions may receive permits from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in the Department of Justice.

With help from U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell’s office and the DEA, Smith received a packet containing names of two DEA employees who could comment about the permit procedure. Subsequently contact was established with Marsha Jones at the Louisville DEA office, and she offered the following comments about permitting procedures:

DEA considers fiber hemp a class I controlled substance regardless of its THC content.

DEA concludes that anyone growing hemp must apply for registration as a manufacturer, not as a researcher. Being a manufacturer greatly increases the application costs and could reduce chances of being approved. (See Appendix B Procedure for Hemp License Application)

In addition to numerous other requirements, DEA requires that the applicant demonstrate effective controls against diversion of controlled substances.

When Smith described his plans and objectives, Jones explained that “effective controls” might normally include security fencing, alarm systems, controlled access to the site (the entire farm), and, perhaps, around-the clock armed guard. (Miles and Smith 1995.)
The United States Government Statutes

In a letter Smith received from James M. Sheahan, chief, registration unit officer of Diversion Control, with the DEA, Sheahan clarified the federal position on research with low THC hemp:

Pursuant to Title 21 , United States Code (21 USC), Section 802 (16). defines marijuana as,

all parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

Since marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the auspices of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and is in schedule I and IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, its cultivation, importation, exportation, and distribution are strictly regulated in the United States and throughout the world. The Single Convention Treaty requires any marijuana (excluding fiber, seeds, and so forth) that is grown must be under the control of the federal government.

DEA has opposed the cultivation of the marijuana plant determining that it is not in the public interest to allow this growth. The prime consideration of the public interest rests with the threat of diversion associated with cultivation.

Pursuant to 21 USC 823 (a), anyone seeking to grow marijuana must apply for registration as a manufacturer. The term “manufacture” meant; the production, preparation. propagation, compounding or processing to a drug or other substances either directly or indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origins. In order to complete the process of registration as a manufacturer of a controlled substance, DEA considers the following criteria:

I) maintenance of effective controls against diversion of particular controlled substances and any controlled substance in schedule I or II compounded therefrom into other than legitimate medical, scientific, research, or other industrial channels, by limiting the importation and bulk manufacture of such controlled substances to a number of establishments which can produce an adequate and uninterrupted supply of these substances under adequately competitive conditions for legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial purposes;

2) compliance with applicable state and local law;

3) promotion of technical advances in the art of manufacturing these substance and the development of new substances:

4) prior conviction record of applicant under federal and state laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of such substances;

5) past experience in the manufacture of controlled substances, and the existence in the establishment of effective controls against diversion, and

6) such other factors as may be relevant to and consistent with public health and safety.

Any application to manufacture marijuana must include detailed documentation regarding these requirements.

The cultivation of the marijuana plant exclusively for commercial, industrial purposes has many associated risks. For example, only the pith, lower stalks and roots of the plant do not contain the active principle during the growth of the plant. After harvesting and removal from the field, substances for misuse can be obtained from the plant. To prevent any abuse, it might be necessary to prohibit removal from the fields of any parts of the cannabis plant except the mature stalks and seeds. It might become necessary to burn the remainder. This entire process would be difficult to enforce.

Currently federal law categorizes all varieties of Cannabis sativa L. as controlled substances. (Sheahan and Smith) The following statutes cite the federal law regarding hemp, (See Appendix B Procedure for Hemp License Application)

The United States Government Statutes of 1995. Currently federal law categorizes all varieties of Cannabis sativa L. as controlled substances. The following citations state the law:

21 USC 812 © (10) – Cannabis sativa L. is a controlled substance.

21 USC 841 – The production, cultivation, or dispensing of Cannabis sativa L. is a felony.

21 USC 844 – The possession of Cannabis sativa L. is a federal offense.

Kentucky Law

Kentucky law provides no exception allowing any governmental agency to grow marijuana. (See Appendix B Procedure for Hemp License Application)
Kentucky Statutes of 1995

Kentucky statutes categorizes all varieties of Cannabis sativa L. as marijuana:

Has 218A.1422 states that a person is guilty of possession of marijuana when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses marijuana. The offense is a Class A misdemeanor.

KaS 218A.010 defines marijuana to include all parts of the plant, whether growing or not. The same statute defines person to include any government or governmental subdivision or agency.
Agronomic Feasibility of Growing Kenaf in the Southeast

Submitted by Morris Bitrer
I. Introduction

Kenaf (Hibiscus cannibinus L.) has been grown in the United States since the 1940’s. Early USDA research focused on the development of kenaf as a cordage crop, but by the late 50’s, most of the research had changed to looking to Kenaf as a source of pulp for paper. In 1970, the USDA released a report (White et al., 1970) entitled “The Cultural and Harvesting Methods for Kenaf . . . An Annual Crop Source of Pulp in the Southeast”. The report summarized much of the research that had been done in the 60’s. Two varieties released in the mid 60’s by Florida, Everglades 41 and 71, are still two of the main varieties being grown today. Many of the cultural practices done during that period have mainly been confirmed with more recent research. The opening paragraph of this report states that “Kenaf is a promising new U.S. crop source of raw material for pulp. It is a fast-growing, productive plant with fairly wide adaptation. Excellent, high-yielding pulps are easily obtained.” Today, kenaf is being evaluated for use in newsprint, erosion mats, seeding mats, poultry litter, horse litter, waste treatment substrate, co=ercial absorbents and as a forage for livestock. (Goforth and Fuller, 1994). During the past 5 years, extensive studies on kenaf have been undertaken at many locations throughout the United States. Kenaf is now recognized as a promising alternative crop with economic potential (Zhang and Dicks, 1994). The main difference between the 60’s and the 90’s stems from pressure to reduce the use of timber and the price of wood pulp has greatly increased in relation to the cost of pulp from kenaf.
II. Current Research

Breeding and Seed Production: Extensive breeding of new kenaf varieties is well underway at Texas A & M and Mississippi State University (Cook and Mullin). The main objectives of a breeding program are to improve the disease resistance particularly to root knot nematode and to improve the yield and quality of the fiber in newer varieties. A good commercial supply of seed is now available for the first time. A major increase of Everglades 41 occurred in Mexico for the Mississippi State Foundation Seed Agency. Another large increase of several varieties was produced in the Rio Grande region of Texas for Kenaf International. In the 1994 growing season, more than 200 acres of kenaf seed production were located in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas with a seed yield of over 700 pounds per acre. There is actually a surplus of seed available for the present market demand. However, an adequate supply of good quality seed is an important factor for the continued expanison of kenaf. The seed produced in Mexico has already increased the competition and lowered seed costs to many producers. Much of the seed in the past has been produced in the tropics of Central and South America and Mexico.

Variety Testing: Varieties of kenaf are being tested from California to Delaware. New varieties being developed by Dr. Charles Cook, USDA, are now being included in many of these trials. Many of these varieties are adapted to different types of soils. In California, excellent yields have been obtained on saline soils (Bhangoo and Cook, 1995). For many years it was thought that good yields could only be accomplished in the more coastal plains of the south. However, in 1965, Purdue University in Central Indiana tested some kenaf varieties and had dry matter yields of 10.9 tons per acre (Lessman, 1965). In 1966 a research report from Nebraska (Williams, 1966) indicated that yields of 3.7 tons/acre and 6.9 tons/acre were achieved without and with irrigation, respectively. This was with the variety Everglades 71 which is still being used today. Recent studies have shown that yields of 6 to 7 tons of dry matter per acre (DM/acre) are possible in many areas of the U.S. including Illinois, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and Texas. Satisfactory yields for economic production appear to be possible as far north as Central Illinois (Lambert et. al., 1995). The 1970 report mentioned earlier stated that “high yields have been obtained as far north as Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.”

There are 2 distinct leaf shapes on the different kenaf varieties. Some varieties have deeply lobed leaves (usually called palmate) with mostly seven appendages on each leaf. Other varieties have shallowly lobed (usually called entire) leaves. These are much more desirable from the standpoint of law enforcement agencies involved in reducing marijuana production and the public because the palmate leaf is often mistaken for the marijuana leaf . During the 1994 growing season at Lexington, Kentucky, an anonymous caller claimed that the University of Kentucky was growing marijuana test plots at the research farm. The DEA investigated the claim and discovered kenaf test plots rather than marijuana. The Everglades-41 variety that was increased in 1994 has the entire leaf shape and should not be confused with the marijuana leaf. At the present time, the palmate leaf types appear to be more consistent in their yield potential and fiber qualities. However, new breeding is aimed at improving the entire leaf types for future use (Baldwin, 1994). As kenaf becomes more widely grown, I believe with good educational programs these differences will be quite evident.

Soil selection and moisture requirements: Optimum growing conditions for kenaf are: mean daytime temperatures of 73-8O° F, a mean night time temperature of 65-75° F and at least 150 frost free days. Kenaf requires about 3 to 5 inches of rainfall per month or 18 to 30 inches during the growing season. A survey of the southeastern states shows a rainfall total of 22 to 34 inches of rain in all of the states. The rainfall is adequate for good kenaf production except when severe droughts occur. Droughts are more common in the Carolinas and Georgia than any other states. It was reported that Kenaf has the capability of becoming somewhat dormant during a long dry spell and then exploding in growth when good raitifall occurs (Personal communication, Cook) With fair to adequate rainfall, it will continue to grow and not be affected by periods of lower rainfall as compared to corn or soybeans. The deep tap root system enables kenaf to survive better during stress periods. In 1994, just slightly over 17 inches of rainfall was recorded on the research station near Lexington, Kentucky where the first kenaf variety trail in Kentucky was being conducted. This test was on a well-drained Maury silt loam that is drought prone in dry weather. Kenaf did not shown any signs of stress from lack of moisture. Excellent growth occurred whereas corn in an adjoining filed suffered drought stress.

The growing season for the upper southeastern states is from May to October. The average rainfall in inches for these states is: Kentucky – 23, North Carolina – 24, Tennessee – 22, Virginia – 26, and West Virginia – 23.

The growing season for the lower southeastern states is from April to October. The average rainfall in inches for these states is: Alabama – 28, Arkansas – 29, Florida – 32, Georgia – 27, Louisiana – 31, Mississippi – 29, Oklahoma – 25, South Carolina – 30 and Texas – 34.

Seeding rate and row width: The best seeding rate is 80,000 to 110,000 plants per acre. This will be from 6 to 8 plants per foot of row in 20,30 or 36 inch row widths. This is from 6 to 10 pounds of seed per acre. There is disagreement in the literature and among researchers as to the best row width to use. The research in Mississippi (Hovermale, 1993, Neill and Kurtz, 1992) suggests that highest yields are obtained at 20 inch rows while in the Rio Grande area of Texas, Charles Cook states that he sees no difference in yield between 30 and 40 inch rows.

The rebirth of U.S. Hemp Farming should start in Kentucky!

%d bloggers like this: