SAMPLES OF DOMESTIC BRIEFS, 2000 (Internationl Briefs follow below)
JANUARY 6, 2000
MY Y2K ASSESSMENT.
I received a lot of flak during the past two years from my own clients and colleagues for my rather mild view of the Y2K danger. I was predicting Y2K to be a 2-4 on a scale of 10, with any major infrastructure problems lasting no more than a few days to a week. As one of the country’s top preparedness experts and as a former moderator of one of Gary North’s Y2K forums most people expected me to be on the “sky is falling” side. My prediction turned out to be fairly accurate, though not because I was sure. Actually, I was in two different camps at the same time. I never doubted for a moment the great danger that Y2K presented. Gary North, Don McAlvany, Ed Yourdon, Michael Hyatt, Jim Lord and others were correct about the magnitude and complexity of the problem. So, I was never one of those that said, “no big deal.” I did, however, differ with all these experts in the end result of Y2K. Like my brother, Mark Skousen (editor of the excellent economic newsletter, “Forecasts and Strategies”) I ultimately rely on my gut feelings in making decisions about the future when the data is incomplete. I couldn’t shake the basic feeling that Y2K was going to work itself out, without a major shutdown of Western civilization. The only thing that began to shake that basic feeling in the final months was the rash of government preparations for martial law. The rumors were flying so thick and fast that I suspected there would be some selective social unrest and that government would take advantage of it to get people used to emergency powers. But even in this, I felt the dark side of government would use these dangerous powers in a discrete manner so that they could gain the propaganda victory of saying, “you see, government needs these powers and can be trusted to use them.” Perhaps the government was, indeed, planning on using these powers, but Y2K simply didn’t provide the opportunity.
Overall, I sensed that Y2K would work itself out because of two major factors that would weigh in much heavier than the technical issues. First, I had confidence in the ingenuity of the technician level people around the country and their ability to figure out bypasses to the computer problems. While all the experts (and CEOs) were focusing their attention on the near impossibility of fixing all the code, I was talking to technicians. They all assured me they could figure out bypasses and temporary fixes for essential infrastructure issues. Their jobs were on the line and I knew they weren’t going to simply stay home when computers failed, or even when management failed to provide proper contingency plans. If any single factor made Y2K a minor threat as to infrastructure it was the work of the technicians--and they are still hard at work with the ongoing problems. There would have been many more failures in power, communications, and sewer/water had not the technicians prepared and implemented manual overrides. This approach was particularly effective in third world countries. Second, I had more begrudging respect for the power of the dark side of government, which was also threatened by the potential havoc of Y2K. While many Christians and conservatives were drawn into the hope that Y2K could take down the evils of big government, I was sure that the Powers That Be (PTB) were not going to allow that to happen. Sadly, I was right. So bad did big government want to come out the “hero” of this situation, they have taken great pains to cover-up many problems that did surface.
Clearly, big government wanted desperately to have a victory over those who don’t trust government and who are seeking for greater self-reliance and liberty. Overall, the world is more highly polarized now, as to people’s view of government, with a slightly larger percentage on the side leery of government promises. The ones who are observant see that government can rarely be trusted to tell the truth--even though things were made to look pretty good in the end. Those who underwent a change in preparedness philosophy and lifestyle will fare much better in future crises, which surely will come. We all owe a great debt to the Gary Norths and Michael Hyatts of the world for sounding the alarm. A few million were moved to prepare who would not otherwise have done so, and got the establishment moving toward a Y2K fix-if only to prove Gary North wrong, among other motivations.
So where do we stand now? The general consensus of experts now is that the big problem in Y2K prognostication was lack of honest candor from government and business combined with the fact that lack of 100% compliance did not equate with failure. I would estimate that at least 75% of the problems got fixed and the rest is in some chronic state of partial failure that can be handled on a “fix on failure” basis, without major disruptions. Government and utilities correctly prepared for failure by putting pressure on many heavy industries to shut down over the Y2Kweekend to make sure the power grid could handle some down time. It was a good strategy. There were some power failures, but the grid held up. There are lots of small failures going on now--but all of them are being remedied within a relatively short time frame. Many of the remedies are quick and dirty patches, but they do buy more time. Here is an excellent quote from Roleigh Martin:
“I think it is also reasonable to assume that most upcoming Y2K failures will simply be unseen by the general public because they will be failures of a business process. Few companies make public announcements of such difficulties and they won't here either. As some have these problems they will simply become one of the factors that cause a company earnings shortfall or demise.”
There are a rash of small failures going on right now, but very few are being reported, or even admitted to have been caused by Y2K. They may not be directly related to the date problem, but they are related to a flawed fix. What we are seeing is the inevitable failure of new systems rushed into use without complete testing. So while the date isn’t the specific problem in many cases, faulty integration and testing of replacement systems are problems.
Lack of honesty in the press is just as bad as always. There are several cases of government computer breakdowns initially reported on websites of CNN, ABC, etc. When you go back to find those reports on their Internet sites a few hours later, they have been purged--even the archives no longer carry the story. The failure of FAA computers in the Northeast was one such story. The FAA claimed it wasn’t Y2K, but it certainly had to be the failure of one of the fixes that were put in place because of Y2K. Y2K is over, in my opinion, so lets move on.
WITNESS TO CLINTON’S COCAINE USE SENT TO JAIL FOR 32 YEARS.
Two years ago, in a powerful display of federal retribution against a political witness, Sharline Wilson, a small time drug seller in Arkansas was sent to prison for a petty drug violation. She got a whopping 32 year sentence. The woman’s real crime was not the drug use or sale, but the fact that she had the courage to testify to a federal grand jury that she saw President Clinton snort cocaine. She actually sold the cocaine to Clinton’s younger brother, Roger. But she happened to mention that Bill Clinton was also present and that he promptly snorted some of Roger’s cocaine to check out the quality (thereby demonstrating that he was no novice). Appeals were made to Republican Governor Mike Huckabee to release her, but since he had campaigned on a “get tough on crime” platform, he felt he could only go so far as to make her eligible for parole. The parole board, after much wringing of hands, finally decided to release her. No press coverage was forthcoming, nor is it expected.
JAN 14, 2000
RENO ATTEMPTS TO FALSIFY WACO SIMULATION
In response to new evidence that FBI agents were using automatic weapons to fire upon Branch Davidians who were trying to escape the fiery inferno at Waco, the Texas judge in the case has ordered a simulation of the Waco siege to ascertain whether aerial infra red film of light flashes from FBI firing positions were muzzle flashes. The simulation will take place at nearby Fort Hood, and will involve a helicopter overflight with an infrared video camera recording the effects of simulated attackers firing automatic weapons. Attorney General Janet Reno offered to have ERIM International conduct and assess the results of the simulation. The defense team of lawyers objected since 3 of the principal investigators at ERIM are former colleagues of William Ginsberg, who filed an affidavit in behalf of the government arguing against running the simulation.
ANALYSIS: That’s not the half of it. ERIM International is one of those companies that emerged after WWII (from the dark world of the OSS) to carry on secret government research and development of spy and surveillance equipment for the CIA and the military. It is still, according to CIA whistleblowers, a front company for the CIA and develops and manufactures most of the high tech equipment that the dark side of government uses to surveil Americans via satellite and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). It is no wonder that Reno wanted these boys on the job. The new video, “Waco--A New Revelation” has all the evidence on film. It is very convincing. Obviously, the government was caught in a big lie and is working to cover it up.
MARCH 3, 2000
US TAXPAYERS SECRETLY FOOTING THE BILL FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT
Remember the controversy over back dues the US owes the UN--some $3.1 billion? That’s peanuts in comparison to the hidden billions the Clinton administration exacts from Congress and the American taxpayer to fund UN projects. For example, last month I detailed the UN’s efforts to hire thousands of policemen from the US and Europe to train civilian police in Bosnia and Kosovo. Because this is a UN operation we would assume the UN is paying the bill. Not so. After reading another report about small town police chief, Charles Lightfoot, who was recruited to work in Bosnia (at twice his normal salary) I decided to investigate the source of this lavish funding. I called DynCorp, the government-connected conglomerate who is handling the recruiting of US police and asked about the source of their funding. Was it the UN? No. The US State Department had issued the contract, worth millions of dollars. I then went to the State Department to find out how this was authorized. This police project was too new to be in last year’s authorization bill. In fact, there was no specific authorization--it was covered under the guise of a huge slush fund for “international affairs.” and backed by a couple of Clinton’s executive orders! This year’s State Department budget for International Affairs is a whopping $22.8 billion. Almost all of this is used to fund NWO pet projects around the world.
ANALYSIS: Here is how this shell game works. Congress gets a wish list from the State Department asking for $22 billion. Congress holds hearings, looks it over and cuts a few items here and there that they do not want to fund. Let’s say they end up giving the State Department $21 billion for next year’s “international affairs” operations. Congress naively expects the State Department spend the money as outlined in the budget. But that isn’t what happens. Once in State’s hands, all Clinton has to do is issue a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD), the specific wording of which is always kept secret, and this big pot of money can flow in any direction he directs. On Thursday, February 24, the press got a clear look at this process. Secretary Albright held a press briefing about a brand new PDD, to be used in combination with PDDs 25 and 56, directing the State Dept. to implement and fund international civilian police training, and a justice system in the Balkans. Congress can complain, but it has no enforcement powers other than to try and cut off all funding for the next year, which is politically impossible.
In the process of this investigation, I also found out that the US government is funding the training of the German Air Force at Holloman AFB. Heretofore, the government had said it was merely leasing space at Holloman AFB to the Germans. We all assumed that the Germans would be footing their own bill for training. Now I find out that this same DynaCorp has a multi-million dollar contract from the Pentagon to maintain all of the German F-4 aircraft at Holloman. Why are we subsidizing the training of the wealthiest country in Europe?
MARCH 10, 2000
GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION OF INFLATION NUMBERS
The Shadow Bureau of Government Statistics in Hawthorne, N.J., issued an alert this month about extreme government manipulation of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)--the official US Government statistical index of inflation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which runs the CPI calculations, reported that for January the CPI rose a mere 0.2 percent . They also reported that producer wholesale prices were unchanged for the same period. How can this be, given the huge rise in both wholesale and retail prices of gasoline and heating oil? The secret, according to Williams, is “Intervention Analysis.” The BLS admits in a footnote, “The BLS has used an enhanced seasonal adjustment procedure called Intervention Analysis. For the fuel oil and the motor fuels indexes, this procedure was used to offset the effects that extreme price volatility would otherwise have had on the estimates of seasonal adjusted data for those series." In other words, not only does the BLS eliminate all seasonal spikes in prices, it also squashes any huge spikes in gasoline prices, supposedly because it is a temporary phenomenon. William’s group estimates that the real CPI was understated by a full percentage point for the month, giving an annualized rate of inflation of near 14%.
ANALYSIS: Temporary price increases or not, the public is paying these outrageous gas prices and they do affect everyone’s cost of living. By the way, gasoline isn’t the only item manipulated on the CPI. Housing costs are converted to “equivalent rents” and then manipulated downward to obscure double digit rising costs. Dental and professional fees are skewed so that they show only the lowest average prices charged at “base rates”. Many items are simply removed from the CPI list when they start inflating rapidly, and substituted with others in the typical (or mythical) BLS “shopping basket.” Several years ago, according to Williams, the government shifted to what it calls ‘geometric weighting’ which means that anything that goes up in price automatically gets a lower weighting in the calclation and anything that goes down in price gets a higher weighting. So all the calculations are designed disguise real inflation.
This kind of government abuse of its fiscal duty is outrageous and has monetary consequences for millions of people. Bond and stock valuations as well as interest rates are skewed without accurate expectations of inflation. Many government and private pension programs are indexed to the CPI. When government fudges the numbers it allows pension managers to evade payment of the full and rightful adjustment. Everyone’s cash and savings are being eroded at a faster pace than they realize and banks are allowed to continue the charade that paying a paltry 3% interest rate is a “fair deal.” The government saves billions in indexed payments to retirees, which in turn, allows politicians to overstate the supposed “surplus.” It is also an essential part of government policy to hide double digit monetary inflation so as to conceal the long-term effects of the Fed’s expansionist monetary policy.
APRIL 7, 2000
CLINTON’S PET JUDGE UNDER SCRUTINY
Larry Clayman’s Judicial Watch (America’s shadow Department of Justice) is going after the Chief Justice of the US District Court in Washington DC., Chief Judge Norma Johnson, whose job includes assigning cases to other judges. She has regularly bypassed the computerized system of random assignment in the prosecutions of six major cases involving Clinton-Gore scandals--everything from Whitewater to campaign fund-raising with the Chinese. She chose Clinton appointed judges for every case, each time refusing to abide by the random selection process. In each case the judges approved token sentences or plea bargains and let the higher-ups escape scrutiny. This is not surprising since virtually all Clinton appointees are trusted insiders who can be relied upon to protect the dark side of government.
Federal appeals judge Stephen Williams, a reliable ally of the Democrats, responded to an earlier complaint by Judicial Watch by dismissing the complaint, without comment. However, when more evidence surfaced recently of other incidents of “judge shopping” by Johnson, Williams was forced to approve a full-scale inquiry. Howard Coble, R-N.C., had entered the fray and presented additional evidence that (besides the Trie and Hubbell cases), Johnson had assigned four other fund-raising cases to Clinton appointees. The other cases included the plea-bargain of Howard Glicken, a prominent Miami businessman and former fund-raiser for Vice President Al Gore. As I have documented in the past, when key judges are controlled by the insiders, the workings of the dark side of government are guaranteed protection. Incidentally, this guarantee of protection is essential to the recruitment process so that other up-and-coming players can feel confident they will be protected in their involvement in illegal activities on behalf of government.
A five judge panel will launch a full-scale inquiry into why Judge Johnson sent prosecutions of presidential friends and fund-raisers to judges favorable to Clinton. Appeals Judge Williams, hoping to give the appearance of a tough investigation, chose three Republicans and a Clinton appointee to help him delve into the conduct of Chief Judge Johnson. None of these judges are solid conservatives, so it is unlikely they will return an unfavorable report. Remember that all the “independent counsels” chosen by Janet Reno were supposedly conservative Republicans, but they were also fellow insiders and worked to cover for Clinton. I predict only a mild rebuke will be forthcoming, sufficient to maintain the appearance of justice, but not strong enough to induce Congress to impeach her. Being a woman and a liberal justice, it would be very unlikely that compromising Sen. Orrin Hatch R-Ut. or Congress would have the courage to impeach her. After Clinton’s sham impeachment process ensured that the public doesn’t have the stomach for it anymore. The Clinton impeachment was specifically orchestrated by the media to destroy future incentives for impeachment.
APRIL 14, 2000
THE ELIAN GONZALES CASE
Commentary: I have been reluctant to comment on this case because I am not in favor of unlimited immigration, nor do I believe anyone ought to get special treatment just because they have become a media celebrity. Yet, this poor boy has become the object of a nasty ongoing betrayal of liberty by the Clinton administration, and I feel my readers ought to know the story, complex as it is.
First, there is the normal amount of hypocrisy in the media reports, giving the impression that this is a simple case of a loving father wanting his son back. Juan Miguel Gonzales, Elian’s father, is portrayed as if he were totally sincere and beyond reproach. There is testimony from relatives of his deceased wife that Juan Gonzales was physically abusive. Family sources also indicate that he was unfaithful and that he left her and Elian for another woman. Elian and his mother lived in poverty without support from the father in a one room apartment. Furthermore, in telephone conversations with Elian, the Miami relatives overheard the father telling the boy his real mother would be waiting for him when he came back to Cuba, which was a cruel lie. On the other side of the coin, the mother was no saint either and was also involved with other boyfriends after the marriage with Juan Miguel. The media is also not giving any coverage to the quirky behavior of the grandmothers when they visited Elian. Juan Gonzales’ mother bit Elian’s tongue and made inappropriate contact with his private parts during her visit. The Catholic President of Barry University, Sister Jeanne O’Laughlin, who was serving as a neutral observer, responded with outrage and denounced the visit. She now says she was told by one of the grandmother’s of Juan Miguel’s abusive behavior to Elian and his mother. She now supports Elian’s bid to remain in the States. Some have suggested that the grandmother’s behavior was either a sign of a cult-like religious curse, or meant to help deter Elian from wanting to return to Cuba. If it was the latter, it worked very well. I won’t pretend to know which motive she had, but I am convinced that Elian should not be returned to Cuba.
Second, I am fed up with Janet Reno and Bill Clinton taking the sacrosanct position of “upholding the rule of law.” This position is filled with hypocrisy as well. The law does not require that Elian be returned automatically to Cuba. On the contrary, he does qualify for political asylum if only for the simple reason that a bloody dictator wants him back so badly. The boy’s video taped expressions refusing to return to Cuba are bound to be an embarrassment to Castro. After Castro’s planned Havana “victory” parade for Elian is over and forgotten, Elian will surely be subject to severe indoctrination and/or discipline. From a legal standpoint, it is also interesting to note that neither of the two other survivors of the failed boat ride to freedom are being deported. What’s the hurry for Elian? This is not rule of law, but rather an ongoing collusion between the Clinton administration and the left to sustain the Castro regime. If Castro is successful in coercing Elian’s return, it will have a chilling effect on other Cubans wishing to defect, knowing that the US cannot be trusted to protect them from Castro’s demands.
There are several motives which may further explain the collusion between Clinton and Castro. First, there is a drug connection between the Castro regime and our own government. A 1996 US drug investigation targeting Fidel Castro's regime was dropped at the insistence of the Clinton Justice Department which claimed that two sources told them the key informant was telling lies about Cuban government involvement. This wasn’t just any informant. It was none other than Cuban drug smuggler Jorge Cabrera, who had just written a $20,000 check to the Democratic National Committee, and who had been a guest of the White House. He was caught bringing in 3 tons of cocaine and several boxes of Cuban cigars. Dropping the investigation would keep Cabrera from spilling the beans.
Drugs are a cash cow not only for Marxist revolutionaries, but the dark side of the US government as well. FALN runs drugs to the US through Puerto Rico with CIA complicity, which may also explain part of Clinton’s actions in releasing FALN terrorists from prison. This was the same CIA faction that shipped arms to Castro during the Cuban revolution, and that worked through the State Department to engineer a cut-off of arms to the pro-US Batista government. For his part, Castro has served as a conduit between several South American drug cartels and the CIA for years, taking a cut in the profits. But don’t think Castro is a CIA lackey. He also works for Moscow, and he can play the blackmail role. He could blow the whistle on US government involvement in drug smuggling at any time--to the embarrassment of the Clinton administration as well as the Republicans. Remember that George Bush Sr. was deeply involved in overseeing this clandestine drug operation while serving as CIA director and also while he was VP of the US. See Rodney Stich’s new book “Drugging America” for details (1-800-437-7389). Of course Castro is reluctant to bite one of the hands that feeds him since he needs those drug profits as much as the next tyrant.
Clinton’s actions might also be intended to demonstrate favoritism to the radical left since the NWO globalist agenda is under fire from those same partners on the far left. As I have pointed out earlier this year, the far left factions of the NWO in Europe are in a battle for control with the US-British factions. The WTO riots in Seattle and the current anti-World Bank demonstrations in Washington DC are part of this ongoing rift. Throwing a bone (in this case throwing a child) to Castro may well be a Clinton tactic to convince the far left that he is still on their side. I don’t think they are buying it. The greatest tragedy is that a child is being made the pawn in this international power play.
APRIL 21, 2000
THE ELIAN CASE: HELPING TO TRACK THE DARK SIDE OF GOVERNMENT
Every time the US government engages in a major media event intent upon provoking the public to supporting a hidden leftist agenda, they make mistakes and leave untidy bits of evidence which shows the telltale marks of collusion. I am going to present to you some of this evidence to demonstrate that the Elian Gonzales case has little to do with reuniting a father with an unwilling son. This is a power-play between the Clinton’s and Castro trying to discredit the Cuban American community so as to help facilitate the normalization of US relations with Cuba. There is a lot of media propaganda going on here as well as government cover-up and deception necessary to keep this agenda hidden.
One of my subscribers asked me if I wouldn’t explain the process of how I go about analyzing news and discovering the signs of collusion, so that he could begin to do this on his own. This case presents an ideal opportunity to discuss a key technique. It involves experience, so it can’t be taught directly. When you have enough experience working in and around the legal field, or government, or the military, or anything that involves the interaction of bureaucracy and power, you develop, over time, a feeling for what it takes to get certain things done. Without intervention, the wheels of justice, and government, grind very slowly. So when I see something happen too quickly, or when I see powerful legal roadblocks brushed aside with ease, I know that someone behind the scenes has tapped into some form of power structure to gain an advantage. You then proceed to find out who is pulling the strings.
The trouble with the normal person is that he too easily accepts the simplistic media version (which always omits key information) and fails to ask tough questions about contradictions with reality that an experienced person would see. For example, in the Filegate Scandal, the media focused on why the White House had hundreds of FBI files on Republican Congressmen and staffers. The experienced person would see another more important issue--that it was also illegal for the FBI to spy on conservative, law-abiding citizens. So, the real question is, “What was the FBI doing with these files?” The answer of this question leads to the inevitable discovery of illegal government operations on a fairly broad scale. By the way, the media are trained to see these kinds of contradictions, and ask probing questions. When they fail to do so on obvious key issues, it almost always means they are covering for something or someone.
In the Elian Gozales case, savvy observers see numerous anomalies with reality and are asking questions like, “How is it that Juan Miguel, the father, has the costly legal services of Gregory Craig, Clinton’s own personal impeachment attorney?” “Who made the arrangements?” and “who’s paying the bill?” Robert Novak reported in the Washington Times that the left-leaning United Methodist Church is paying Craig’s high fees from a special fund created by donors who “wish to remain anonymous.” Anyone who thinks these instant big dollar donors are ordinary members of the Methodist Church doesn’t know how the real world works.
And, lest you think this is just benevolent liberal charity to help an indigent father get back his son, we have to ask, “Why did Greg Craig travel twice, in secret, to Cuba?....to meet with Juan Miguel?” Nope-- to meet personally with Fidel Castro!” One disgruntled government agent leaked to Cuban-American leader Diaz-Balart a secret memo from Craig to the White House, stating that he (Craig) “provided Castro with sufficient guarantees that US security personnel would make certain that Elian’s father will not be allowed to defect.” Again, with experience one should know that Craig couldn’t have made those assurances without prior instructions from the government. This, of course, implies that the US government is working directly against persons who may be seeking asylum from a Communist tyranny. We can also infer that the Castro-Clinton team knows that Juan Miguel is being forced to play a role, and that they believe there is a high probability that Juan Miguel would try to defect.
Here is another interesting question. How is it that the Miami relatives ended up with Kendall Coffey as their attorney in the Elian case? Coffey is a long-time Democratic collaborator with Janet Reno when Reno was Attorney General of Florida. He was chosen by Reno to head up the US Attorney’s office in Miami. Coffey had raised money for Reno to fund her election campaigns. Coffey offered his services to the Miami Cubans at near pro-bono rates, and, in my opinion, will play a key role in undermining Elian’s case when it gets before the courts (who often skew the law to protect the dark side of government). Coffey’s presence is particularly offensive to some Cuban Americans since he was forced to resign as US attorney in disgrace after he was accused of biting a lap dancer on the derriere in a notorious Miami striptease club. I’m sure Coffey sold his services to the Miami relatives on his ability to gain access to Janet Reno. That’s an understatement! But, in reality, Coffey’s presence is typical of dark side operations where they attempt to infiltrate and control both sides of any legal battle.
There’s more. How is it that the pediatrician advising the Justice Department on how best to handle Elian Gonzalez is a long-time Clinton confidant and former member of Hillary’s health care task force? Only reliable Clinton cronies were allowed on this secretive panel. Predictably, Dr. Irwin Redlener told the press that Elian is being "horrendously exploited" and should be immediately removed from Miami relatives' home. Still not convinced there is collusion going on? Read on.
RENO GETS A PHONE CALL
Finally, there is Janet Reno’s admission to the Mayor of Miami that she got a controlling phone call directing her actions. All savvy government watchers know that lower level subordinates and high level leaders get private phone calls from time to time directing their actions. Sadly only the dark side of government has the right to tap government phones, and the FBI isn’t about to reveal the secret collusion of its ultimate leaders. Occasionally a mid level official or judge will let it slip that he “got a phone call” directing how he should rule in a case. Here we have a similar slip that was not meant to become public.
Mayor Corollo of Miami said that during his negotiations with the Attorney General, that Reno had suggested bringing both sides of the family together in a government secured compound (that would ring warning bells for me) for a period of up to two weeks, where the Miami relatives and Elian's father would determine the boy's custody amongst themselves. By the next day Corollo said that Reno had reneged on the offer, without explanation. On a WABC broadcast Corollo told of his follow-up conversation with Janet Reno:
“The following day, Wednesday, I called her from my office...In fact, we had several telephone conferences with her. I was present and my colleague, the mayor of Miami-Dade County was also present in my office. And I said to her, 'Madam Attorney General, why was it that when we left your office on Tuesday we had at least an agreement from you that you were going to be flying to Miami the next day. You said that you would call both of us later on, on Tuesday evening so that we could give you the list of people and go over the locations where you could meet with the different leaders that you said you wanted us to bring to you to meet with in Miami. And you've never called us. Why? And the answer that she gave me was, 'Mr. Mayor, I received a phone call.'" Corollo said Reno refused to elaborate or say who it was who directed her actions. Don’t be too quick to assume it was Clinton. There are other bosses as well.
Last week I mentioned the US government’s drug connections with Cuba as well as the long-term globalist agenda of gaining normal trade relations with Cuba. Cuban-American leader Diaz-Balart also believes that the left’s quest for normalization of relations with Cuba is the underlying reason for making Elian a cause celebre. He feels that there are numerous forces working to discredit and undermine the credibility of the Miami Cuban-American community, who stand as a major political obstacle against recognition of Cuba. He notes, correctly, how the media is constantly trying to bait Cubans who are keeping a vigil around Elian’s home. The cameras never show films of the peaceful candlelight prayer vigils, but only of the few moments each day when the Cubans are induced to counter the press’ provocative challenges and questions. Those shots of angry faces are all that air on the evening news.
Also notably omitted from news coverage are the items that would correctly showcase Castro’s threatening speeches about Elian on Cuban radio, including his openly stated plans to house Elian and his father in a special building with integral school facilities to reindoctrinate Elian when he returns. Anyone who thinks a Cuban father will have American style custody and parental rights in Cuba does not know how the world works in a Stalinist regime. The media has also carefully evaded the airing of the charges by Elian’s mother’s relatives recounting in a sworn affidavit of the physical abuse Juan Miguel inflicted upon Elian’s mother, Elizabeth, during their marriage--in one case, causing her to be hospitalized.
APRIL 28, 2000
WHITE HOUSE BUILT A HIGH-TECH SHIELD TO COVER-UP ILLEGAL CONTACTS
The US government has a long tradition of keeping records on everything, including its own SECRET internal operations. Now that the ratio of legitimate and legal government activities to its dark side activities is diminishing, especially during the Clinton administration, this meticulous and redundant tracking system, comprised of tape recorders, phone logs, computer tapes and paper reports, threatens to expose more dark side government activities than protect legal ones. Some of these systems are required by law in order to meet congressional accountability standards, since Congress pays the bills of the White House. But most of the top secret tracking systems are kept within the bowels of the dark side of government anyway and Congress is never allowed to know of their existence. They are used for purposes of internal coercion of employees who may threaten to reveal dark side activities. Occasionally, bits of information from these tracking systems surfaces as leaks to the liberal press when the Powers That Be (PTB) want to destroy some government agent or high level leader (like Richard Nixon).
The White House has spent nearly $70 million in the past 8 years changing out the old tracking systems and replacing them with new ones which deny congressional and OMB auditors and investigators, access to the crucial links between illegal activities and contacts and those who actually made those contacts. Here is what they have done. As I reported earlier, Northrop-Grumman was brought in to change over the White House computer system and modify the email tracking and recording system. Unnamed programmers, working directly for the White, outside the Northrop contract, apparently modified the tracking program so that two sections of the White House, including those of the Clinton’s and their most trusted aides, would not have their emails logged or recorded. These sensitive emails were routed to a separate bank of computers, so that when Congress supoenaed electronic records relative to illegal campaign contributions, these emails (over a million of them) would not show up.
The White House recording system, which tape records all calls, has been split into two sections--one public for non-sensitive employees (which is kept available for Congress), and another which is classified “top secret” for National Security employees (which has been broadened to include all key White House political hacks who have conversations to hide). Most of these calls are done on secure, encrypted phones. Congress knows something exists in this area, but is never allowed to have access. Additionally, the president and first lady have special phones that supposedly have no recording devices so as to ensure their privacy. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if these were also tied into the “top secret” system. The dark side always likes to capture plenty of “dirt” on high level officials just to keep them in line--and the Clintons are prime game. With the high level of technology used by government today, virtually no one can guarantee they are immune to privacy invasions if they are speaking on public systems. Spying back and forth between various factions of the dark side of government is rampant, according to the few CIA and FBI defectors who are still alive. This is how mid-level operatives protect their turf and give themselves insurance against being taken down by other factions.
Recently, it has come to light that the White House spent $25 million modifying their telephone call tracking system to make sure phone logs throughout the White House system do NOT record the actual telephone number of the person making the call. Virtually all telephone logging equipment on the market today tracks all routing from the initiating telephone to the destination phone. What the White House had to do to give general anonymity to its illegal activities was to modify the system (at great expense) so that all specific traces to initiating phones would be generalized into a group area (like the West Wing of the White House--a huge staff building--or the East Wing, etc). So, now, while an investigator could track how many calls were going to China, he could not detect who was making the calls--a perfect way to allow the White House to later claim “plausible deniability” and defer blame to the ever-available “rogue” employee excuse. WorldNetDaily’s Paul Sperry did some fine investigative work during the past month detailing this powerful telephone shielding system. He found out from Sheryl Hall, a former White House official who managed the PBX switch and the AT&T contractors, that "They had the software changed out with AT&T, so you don't see the originating telephone number at the user's desk." Sperry comments, “By masking international phone activity, the White House may have withheld potentially valuable information from federal investigators looking into scandals such as Chinagate. For years, officials have been telling Congress and federal prosecutors that they can't turn over more detailed phone records, which have been subpoenaed, because of phone system limitations.” What they've failed to mention, says Sperry, is that “they paid AT&T programmers to install those limitations.” When Sperry questioned a current White House telephone manager, he replied, “I'm not allowed to talk about it. That's what I've been instructed to do." He said it was a matter of security, which would be an illegal use of the “national security” shield, since the White House phone system is not classified.
While routinely thumbing through AT&T's long-distance records, Hall says she was shocked by spikes in White House calls to certain countries during and after the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. "Each month I would review the phone records," she said, "and I'd see hundreds of calls to China, hundreds of calls to Switzerland, hundreds of calls to France, each month in 1996 and 1997 and 1998." There were also huge spikes in telephone traffic during 1996 to the Defense Ministry in Beijing and to the Indonesian based Lippo Group, controlled by the Chinese. The flurry of calls to Switzerland in 1996 is a key indication of money laundering operations associated with hiding campaign contributions as well as other dark side black budget operations. There were no other major international events taking place in Switzerland at that time that would have justified this spike.
MORE DARK SIDE EVIDENCE FROM THE ELIAN SAGA
The Elian case has generated a new flood of suspicious government watchers who are scrutinizing Janet Reno’s and Greg Craig’s every move. A few fortuitous leaks are flowing out of the White House cover-up headquarters that continue to cast an evil light on the governments motives. Apparently Clinton lawyer Greg Craig warned every major media head to censor the upcoming raid on the Gonzales home, giving evidence that the negotiations were a sham. Note the last sentence where Craig encourages the networks to work in collusion to hide the truth--something we know must be going on. Here are key parts of the fax:
[fax stamp:]ORIGINAL FAX: 4/21/2000 20:10 PM - From: Law Offices WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 202-434-5000 Fax: 202-434-5029
From: Gregory Craig, April 20, 2000 [addressed to major media outlets]
I am writing on behalf of Mr. Juan Miguel Gonzalez. We have read news reports that the house in Miami where Juan Miguel's son is being held is being "wired" for full camera coverage of any effort by federal authorities to take Elian Gonzalez into custody. I am writing to ask that you please refrain from broadcasting any such coverage.
RENO MAY FACE CONTEMPT CHARGE--BUT DON’T COUNT ON IT
Reno’s forces claimed they didn’t need a court order to seize Elian. If that is true, why did they go to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to request such a court order? It was denied. Reno then went to a local U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert L. Dube to get a generic “concealed property” search warrant. The judge willingly complied by altering the language of this stolen property warrant to include the term “person “ in the form of one child, Elian Gonzales--who was neither stolen nor concealed. The case number on the warrant was blank. This was a sham piece of paper to give the color of law to the “jack-booted INS thugs” who made the raid. This was the first change of custody in American history executed without a court order and at the point of a gun.
ANALYSIS: All of these actions are grounds for the Court to hold Reno in contempt, if the Miami relatives want to pursue it. I am not optimistic. First, the Miami relatives have a legal and negotiations team which includes Reno friends and advotcates who will continue to sabotage the case. Second, who would exercise the Court’s contempt notice on the nation’s highest law enforcer? Congress has no enforcement authority, and the courts have only a few token officers. Clinton would have to fire Reno and appoint another AG to prosecute--which is highly unlikely. One of the biggest flaws in our current separation of power doctrine is that no one has real authority to prosecute the government when the entire executive branch and Department of Justice become filled with co-conspirators to obstruct justice. Impeachment has now become so maligned as to be useless.
FRAUD IN POLLING
There were a lot of phony polls published on the Elian Gonzales issue. Informed persons were almost unanimously against the government’s position. Ignorant Americans were supportive when the polls played only upon the father-son custody case. This discrepancy is sad but understandable, given the denial of crucial information to the public. Public opinion is regularly manipulated by selective polling of predictable liberal areas of the country, known to give a certain result. Pollsters also use carefully worded questions to lead unsophisticated people to predictable conclusions. During the impeachment process ABC’s Tim Russert told Larry Nichols, an independent information source for the establisment media, that NBC’s internal tracking polls showed that 80% of the people wanted Clinton removed from office. After seeing NBC’s newscoverage touting the figure that 70% of the people wanted Clinton to stay in office, Nichols challenged Russert in private. Nichols said, “You lying son of a gun, you told me that your tracking polls showed 80% of the people wanted Clinton out of office – then you tell the public that 70% of the people want him to stay. Russert responded, “Well, those tracking polls are for our internal use only, we can’t release those for public consumption. The polls we released were the ones we paid for outside pollsters to do. Those are the ones we release.” Credits for this information goes to Jim Condit Jr., Director, Citizens for a Fair Vote Count.
MAY 7, 2000
ASPEN INSTITUTE CONNECTION TO ELIAN’S STAY AT WYE RIVER PLANTATION
Elian Gonzalez was removed from Andrews AFB to the Wye River Plantation on Maryland’s eastern shore last week. This complex of high priced conference centers, often used for international negotiations, is owned by none other than the Aspen Institute--one of the world’s foremost covert cheerleaders for the global NWO. One of my subscribers noted that when this ownership connection became public on the Internet, the Aspen Institute suddenly removed all references to its ownership of Wye River from its website. In the meantime, several major news outlets on the web had picked up the story linking Aspen to Wye River. Suddenly there was a complete purging of those stories as well. They simply disappeared from the archives, as if they had never been written.
ANALYSIS: Clearly the Powers That Be (PTB) don’t want people to see the interplay of the global insiders with the inner workings of the so-called “rule of law” in the US Department of Justice. I also found some other interesting connections that point to a strong linkage between Greg Craig, Clinton’s lawyer who now serves Elian’s father (via Fidel Castro and the leftist National Council of Churches) and the dark side of the government. Greg Craig was a Skull and Bones inductee at Yale University and rose to notoriety in his early legal career by defending John Hinkley, who had attempted to assassinate President Reagan. Hinkley had all the markings of a CIA “cut-out.” Cut-outs are CIA assets that are laundered out of the agency through various false covers, so the agency can disavow any relationship. The typical sign I look for is someone who mysteriously “disappears” for a year or two without a trace and then suddenly surfaces in public, refusing to say where he has been. That is exactly what happened to John Hinkley. The only thing he did take care to document during his two year absence was a visit to a psychiatrist to establish his insanity defense. The fact that Greg Craig came out early in his career defending someone like Hinkley, to me, speaks of his long-term commitment to serving the insider power structure. There is no coincidences in who the controlled courts appoint as attorneys for government patsies like Oswald, Ruby, Hinkley, Sirhan-Sirhan, or Tim McVeigh. All the defense lawyers in these cases were, in my opinion, connected to the dark side of government. In every case, there is evidence that these lawyers and judges made sure their clients were convicted and that during the trial their clients had no contact with the public where they could reveal how they were set up for the fall.
CHRONIC LYING IS A HABIT WITH THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
The Elian Gonzalez saga is another in the long list of outright lies manufactured by the dark side of the US government to cover federal agent behavior that would be repulsive to Americans. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) official report on the Miami raid to take custody of Elian Gonzalez reads like a “Pack of Lies,” says NBC cameraman Tony Zumbado, who was physically attacked by the agents. According to a DOJ spokesman, “News footage of the operation clearly shows that the team members acted with discipline and restraint.” The report specifically prints published debriefing reports by individual INS agents involved in the raid stating, unequivocally, that there was “no profanity used,” and that no one was physically attacked or even threatened to be shot.
Multiple witnesses have come forth to refute every one of these statements. For example, Gonzalez family friend Roberto Curbelo said he heard one of the agents shout at Marisleysis Gonzalez, Elian's cousin, “Where is the f-----g boy?” Dalrymple, Elian’s rescuer, also claimed another agent used multiple forms of ugly profanity as the team left the bedroom. Others said almost every command by the agents was accompanied by a stream of profanity. Obviously this isn’t a simple case of isolated forgetfulness on the part of the agents involved, but chronic habits of verbal abuse. This use of profanity and vulgarity is backed-up by virtually every other experience of people who have experienced a SWAT team take-down. I don’t think the government could find a legitimate witness anywhere in the world who could testify that SWAT teams act with courtesy, and yet the government has the audacity to claim their agents acted “as perfect gentlemen.” This is ludicrous on its face that “no profanity was used.” I’m surprised Reno’s thugs didn’t at least take a middle-ground approach, admitting to some “regrettable” profanity, which would have been more believable.
As for the government’s claim that no one was physically harmed, NBC’s Zumbado testified that “the agents were physically and verbally abusive; they said every bad word in the book and kept me from doing my job. We got maced, we got kicked, we got roughed up.” He also added that “federal agents kicked me in the stomach and yelled, ‘Don't move or we'll shoot.’” Zumbado also told NBC's Dateline program: “My sound man got hit with a shotgun butt on the head, dragged outside – he was halfway in – and he was dragged out to the fence and left there, and they told him if he moved they'd shoot.” Zumbado also said that federal agents disabled his camera and yanked out its audio cable. Zumbado injuries were sufficient to require hospitalization. He came home on a stretcher. For the feds, it seems that “the bigger the lie, the better.” Even Reno’s friend Kendal Coffey who weaseled his way into the Gonzalez clan as their lawyer (by offering “free” services), couldn’t back up the feds’ disinformation. Coffey said he was astounded at the report's claims, specifically that no pepper or tear gas was used. “It was clearly inside the house....I saw a 5-year-old in convulsions from the spray,” he said.
ANALYSIS: Of course, this is nothing compared to the lying the government engaged in relative to the TWA 800 cover-up where the testimonies of over 100 witnesses to a missile attack on the airliner were coerced, suborned or otherwise denied. A series of lies has even surfaced relative to the latest spy scandal at Los Alamos where several hard drives were reported missing from high security vaults. The drives contained top secret data on nuclear weapons, and public disclosure of the theft was delayed for weeks after the initial discovery. The Department of Energy is claiming that the investigation was hampered by the effects of the fire in the area. Apparently, this too is a lie. Los Alamos employees have leaked the story that the discovery happened long before the fire. The bottom line is that as long as the media continues to cover for the government by not giving ongoing press coverage to the contradictions and cover-ups, the public will never lose its naive trust in the statements of high officials. I suggest that the brazenness of government perfidy (lying) is a reflection of the confidence the dark side has in their control of the media. One cannot exist without the other.
WACO COVER-UP GETS DEADLY--AGAIN
Carlos Ghigliotti, owner of Infrared Technology, was a man who knew too much. He was found dead in his locked office, slumped over his desk. Foul play is almost certain. Ghigliotti was on retainer as an investigator for the congressional committee studying the role of FBI agents in shooting Branch Davidians as church members attempted to flee the burning compound. According to attorney David T. Hardy, who has been to Ghigliotti’s lab and office, Ghighiotti had a lot of high tech equipment and had discovered numerous proofs that the government was actively attempting to falsify the results of the infrared reenactment. Hardy said that Ghigliotti had a large stack of sensitive files on the Waco case, sitting on his desk, that implicated the FBI in using drug monies to fund the Waco operation. Those files are now missing from the office, and provide one of the prime motives for Ghigliotti’s elimination. I don’t expect the autopsy will come up with much. Every major political killing in recent years, from Vince Foster to Ron Brown, has had the autopsy results tampered with. According to Hardy, here is what Ghigliotti was on to:
First, Ghigliotti thought the re-creation infrared tape was “junk.” Not only was it digitally altered to show less detail, but the aircraft wasn't flying at the right altitude. Neither did the contractors verify that the sensor was functioning comparable to the Waco flyover. The temperatures differed significantly compared to the original hot April day in 1993, guaranteeing that the results would be different. Second, Ghigliotti also had access to the 1993 pilot’s taped conversations and reported that the FBI pilots were using the IR equipment to monitor the Davidian’s water supply and had notified their bosses when the elevated water tank above the compound was empty. That’s when the attack came--just when the government knew the Davidians would have to soon surrender due to lack of water. Since the FBI attacked when the end of the siege was imminent, it raises the suspicion that the government wanted no witnesses to survive. The original footage shows agents firing on the opening to the underground storm shelter, to make sure those inside could not get out. His view was that they were gassing the underground vault to pin Davidians in place during the fire.
Ghigliotti thought it preposterous that judge Smith would allow Vector Data Research to do the re-enactment of the IR video. Vector Data is owned by a conglomerate of defense contractors who work for the Pentagon, NSA, and FBI. These are defacto employees of the agencies on trial. Predictably, Vector Data claimed the duration of flashes on the 1993 Waco FLIR is too long for the flashes to be gunshots, hence they are more likely sunlight reflections. Another government lackey, defense contractor Maryland Advanced Development Laboratory (MADLAB) agreed. Ghigliotti said this is bunk. In fact, they weren’t long flashes at all. When the video is slowed down, it is clear they are rapid bursts of flashes, similar to automatic rifle fire. For an expert to fail to notice this is highly suspicious, he thought.
Vector Data also discounts rifle fire because “the flashes on the 1993 Waco tape do not show shooters." This is both true and false. A Forward-looking Infrared (FLIR) camera only sees relative temperature. That is why the government insisted on doing the re-creation on a much cooler day where the test shooters would still be visible to the camera. On a hot day, the bodies of the shooters would quickly heat up and would appear as the same temperature as the surrounding ground--disappearing from view. Contrary to government claims and media reports, shooters can be seen next to the gunshot flashes on 1993 Waco FLIR, but only just after exiting their vehicles. As soon as their clothing heats up in the sun, they do become invisible to the camera.
According to attorney Hardy, Carlos Ghigliotti had in his possession several media video tapes taken through gigantic telephoto lenses, from one or two miles away. Ghigliotti could import video into his computers showing in one window the regular media video and, in another, the FBI infrared film side by side. When he would see a flash on the FLIR video, he would search for an agent shouldering a weapon in the corresponding frames from the media video, and BINGO--a match. On one video segment, he magnified it and found it showed the agent shouldering the weapon, taking a shot and then turning to look at the media cameras. When the agent saw he was being filmed, he quickly ducked behind a tank for cover. The FLIR then showed more flashes from that area as the agent continued to fire upon the compound. This is the kind of evidence the government could not allow to exist. The fact that some committee staffer gave Carlos confidential files showing FBI use of drug funds has implications as well. My suspicion is that the staffer suspected that the committee was trying to help the FBI whitewash the case, and leaked these files to Ghigliotti to ensure someone else would bring it up in their report to Congress. It may have been those leaked files that forced the dark side to act.
MAY 12, 2000
ISRAEL EAVESDROPS ON WHITE HOUSE
Over a year ago, a CIA insider leaked the story to Insight Magazine that the FBI had discovered an ongoing Israeli scheme to eavesdrop on government secure phones. Insight broke this blockbuster story last week and the major media has strangely ignored it. For the past year Insight has been in contact with the FBI trying to get them to confirm the leaks, without success. I think Insight hoped that breaking the story would force the White House and the FBI to be more forthcoming with details. But, so far, nothing but silence–except from a few former agents with direct knowledge of the affair. “All I can tell you is that we think we know how it was done,” an intelligence executive told Insight. A high government official would only admit awareness of the FBI probe. He claimed, “It is a politically sensitive matter. I can’t comment on it beyond telling you that anything involving Israel on this particular matter is off-limits. It’s that hot.”
According to Insight, FBI agents had been tracking an Israeli businessman working for a local phone company. The man’s wife works under diplomatic cover at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. As in almost all embassies, including those of the US, many intelligence operatives masquerade as embassy employees. Israel’s intelligence agency (Mossad) will often train husband and wife teams. One will work in an embassy and therefore have the privilege of being accompanied by the spouse. Since Israel is closely tied to the CIA, spouses of embassy employees are often allowed to get jobs within the US. In this case, the husband worked his way into a job at the local telephone company. When federal agents made a search of his work area they found a list of the FBI’s most sensitive telephone numbers, including the Bureau’s “black” lines used for wiretapping. According to the article, some of the listed numbers were lines that FBI counterintelligence used to keep track of the suspected Israeli spy operation. The hunted were tracking the hunters with their own telephone lines.
This discovery by Division 5 of the FBI (a little known counter-intel section of the agency) has supposedly sent shock waves through the White House. The FBI discovered enough information to suspect that the highest levels of the State Department were compromised, as well as the White House and the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC is where all the top insiders are assigned to guide the president on how he should act (on behalf of the Powers That Be). A local phone manager had become suspicious in late 1996 or early 1997 about activities by a subcontractor working on phone-billing software and hardware designs for the CIA. The CIA was obviously trying to modify the system to stop the Israeli “mole” from eavesdropping.
Political analysts have put forth the idea that the leak about the Israeli spying was an attempt to put pressure on Israel to stop its sale of AWACS early warning aircraft to China. Another spy scandal on the heels of the Jonathan Pollard case might put Israel’s foreign aid funding on hold. Israel has been promised billions in aid from the Clintons for giving in to Syria’s territorial demands in Israel’s Lebanese security zone.
ANALYSIS: Once again, what happens on the surface rarely reflects reality. The Clinton administration is only feigning being upset over the AWACS deal between Israel and China. As I pointed out in previous briefs, Israel has served as an alternate pipeline for technology transfers to its own enemies and US enemies (on behalf of the Clinton administration) for years. Israel has shipped weapons from US secret stockpiles to Iran, Iraq, Russia, China and even arch-enemy Syria. Like any “cut out” for government operations, Israel is used to “taking the heat” for secret US operations and then counting on being secretly compensated with other back-door funds. The real reason for Israel’s espionage lies elsewhere.
Keep in mind that Israel has a split aspect to its government, just like the US. There are patriotic, pro-Israel government and military officials and then there are the “dark side” forces working for the NWO, trying to undermine Israeli sovereignty. The dark side of the Israeli government controls both major parties in Israel (Likud and Labor) just like our Republican and Democratic parties are controlled. Like our own CIA, the Israeli Mossad has its dark side too. The black ops side of the Mossad is closely linked with the black side of our CIA and gets most of its secret funding by working for the CIA doing international assassinations and running CIA drug operations for profit. See Rodney Stich’s book, Drugging America Order line: 1-800-247-7389
The current eavesdropping could have been done by either the white or black side of Israel’s Mossad. I suspect it was by the white side. The black side has access to more high tech ways of tapping government phones, owing to its relationship with the CIA. The Israeli white side clearly knows that Israel is being undermined by its own political leaders (who always consult with Henry Kissinger before entering into any US brokered negotiations). They would have the most to gain from wiretapping the government’s phones.
Loyal Israeli officials have long been suspicious of the US. Back during the ‘67 war the Israelis attacked the US spy ship “liberty” in the Mediterranean as it was steaming at full speed toward the Israeli war zone. The US and Israel both publicly declared the incident an accident of “mistaken identity.” Both knew that was a lie and went to great lengths to falsify the official US inquiry. The Israeli military was just getting ready to launch a surprise attack on the Golan Heights–then occupied by Syrians, led by Russian commanders. The Israelis knew that Russia had penetrated US intelligence, and that the interception of Israeli communications by the US spy ship would alert the Russians, so they warned the US to back off. The US refused and the Israelis attacked the ship–whose US flags were clearly visible.
I point this out to show that even though Israel is an “ally” of the US, it doesn’t trust the US anymore. Both factions in Israel know that our government is no longer working for liberty, but rather, to further a New World Order (NWO). Other allies are equally suspicious. France, for example, is loyal to another faction of the NWO and spies on the US. In turn, the US spies on them and everyone else. The same is true for Germany. There is an arrogance about US superiority that foreign allies resent. Even as other nations, like Israel, have bought into the NWO as their “only alternative” for survival, they all feel that the US can’t be trusted anymore–especially since the ECHELON global spy system became public. When multiple factions are trying to build a world government, each faction knows that the ultimate result will never be democratic. They know a power struggle for ultimate control will someday have to happen. Neither of the two Israeli factions has any hope of controlling the NWO–Israel is too small. The dark side in Israel is trying to buy a protected position within the NWO power center, and the Zionist-nationalist side is desperately maneuvering to maintain its independence.
MAY 19, 2000
THE COLUMBINE FINAL REPORT: An Amateur Warren Report
The Jefferson County sheriff department’s final report on the investigation of the Columbine High School shootings reads more like a high school drama production than an investigative document. The report, written by 3 women writers hired by the sheriff’s department, is not professional in either tone or approach. It makes wordy, emotional comments rather than sticking to the facts. It tries overly hard to paint a confused, irrational picture of events so as to justify all the failures of authorities to intervene quickly to save lives. The writers comment and argue for one position only–that there were only two shooters–and yet the report systematically refuses to discuss any specific evidence that would allow a reader to make an independent judgment of any controversy. This report is pure propaganda. Like the multi-tome Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination, the report’s entire purpose is to cover-up all evidence contrary to the desired lone assassins conclusion. What can’t be covered up is omitted altogether or simply explained away as “misunderstandings” by witnesses.
There are 15 lawsuits pending over government actions or inaction at Columbine, and the report is careful to evade the specific facts or evidence that the plaintiffs need to bring government and police officials to justice. I’ve have waded through most of it and it is my opinion that the report is noteworthy not by what is in it, but by what is explicitly absent. The report doesn't answer or explain:
· why it took SWAT teams more than 45 minutes to enter the school and 3 hours to reach the library.
· why teacher Sanders and other students were not reached until hours AFTER the shooting stopped.
· why NATO units and a 2 star general were involved and how they happened to be in the area.
· why students were pressured to change their stories to conform to the two-shooter theory
· why there was a massive military presence at the Columbine memorial services months later.
The report goes out of its way to paint a detailed scenario that gives the impression of completeness. It is easy to do since there are so many trivial details that can be used to obscure more important ones. The report describes the initial confusion and bewilderment of law enforcement on the scene, claiming there were too many agencies, too many conflicting 911 reports, and not enough coordination. That may sound plausible, and certainly explains why they would wait for a unified SWAT team to arrive for the actual assault. But after the SWAT team arrived fairly quickly, we are given no credible explanation of why they waited and waited to enter. This is something they are trained to do without excessive planning. The reader cries out for answers and gets none. The report doesn’t even bring up the question directly.
In the report’s introductory remarks it uses a standard legal trick to justify its refusal to discuss details, saying this is still an “open investigation” and that “to preserve the privacy of witnesses who are not yet in the public eye, we have excluded certain names and details from this report.” What an understatement. There is only one reason those witnesses are not yet in the public eye–because the authorities don’t want them there. Just like the manipulated results of the TWA 800 investigation, over 80 witnesses to the missile attack were coerced and threatened into silence or into changing their stories. Many student witnesses have reported identical treatment at the hands of federal and state investigators. Clearly every official had their marching orders: to gather evidence that only Harris and Klebold were involved in the Columbine massacre. In May of 1999 Mark Taylor, a Columbine student injured in the shooting was still in the hospital. A friend came to visit and found Mark’s mother rather upset. She said her son was getting death threats–someone is threatening to finish off the injured students and the rest of Columbine. She also said that so many Columbine students know of other assailants being involved that she sees no way the truth about this could be covered up. That assessment has proven to be very naive.
Internet reporter John Quinn of News Hawk, Inc (email@example.com) Tel: 707 984-7178 was one of the few able to penetrate the threat barriers and get one of the eye witness students to talk. Quinn’s initial conversations with the parents of one student, Chris Whisher, indicated they were clearly afraid, saying they didn’t want him talking to their son. When Quinn called back to ask the parents another question, Chris himself answered the phone and seemed willing to talk. Chris told Quinn, “They were just shooting everywhere" He added that the suspect who shot at his group was wearing a black coat, sunglasses and a BERET. All the others who saw Klebold and Harris said they were wearing ear protectors and white and black T shirts, respectively. The surveillance cameras confirmed the T shirt apparel.
Chris told him that lots of students saw other shooters–as many as 7 or 8 at one time. He said he knew personally of a girl who was coerced into changing her testimony by sheriffs investigators, and made to say that she had only seen Harris and Klebold. Quinn said Chris reverified that statement in another session and added that other friends of his had personally witnessed a group of 7-8 individuals in trench coats, with weapons, shooting in a different part of the school simultaneous to Harris and Klebold firing weapons elsewhere. Quinn asked whether his friend knew if some or all of these other shooters were students. He responded that only some were students. Chris himself told Quinn that he was later requestioned and pressured by investigators, who then tried to make a substantial effort to "help" Chris "understand how it may have only been Harris and Klebold" that he had seen at Columbine!
I reported last year in July how another witness was worked over by investigators to convince her that what she saw wasn’t possible. Columbine High School art teacher Patti Nielson, wounded in the school attack, made unwitting statements that cast grave doubts on the official two- gunmen theory. Nielson and student Brian Anderson observed and were shot by what she said was a “MAN outside the school” on the upper terrace using a semi-automatic pistol. She said he was dressed in black and was shooting a gun toward the parking lot. She yelled at him to stop because she "thought he was doing a dumb thing." She then said the man turned, grinned and shot at her. Describing him initially as “small” she later recanted upon being told by officials who the shooters “really were” and said, "I thought he was small, but I found out later he was pretty tall!" However, during the prior events, the teacher (trained to see details) continually referred to the assailant as a man, both during her 911 call and in other statements.
Despite all the harassment, there were numerous students who refused to be cowed by the pressure. The report tried to pass off these witnesses as an anomaly with this self-serving statement: “Despite the supporting evidence, both from ballistics and eyewitness accounts, that only two people, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were the gunmen on April 20, 1999, seven eyewitnesses remain firm in their account of another person with a gun that day.” Naturally, the report denies us the specific testimony of these holdouts. In fact, they weren’t just saying there was ONE other person, but multiple shooters. I’m sure they would have an interesting rebuttal to this report–something like “I can count, can’t I???” TWA 800 witnesses to the missile kill were equally outraged when FBI agents kept trying to convince them that what they saw going UP must have, in fact been coming DOWN! There is a pattern to these cover-ups.
In conclusion #4 the report boldly proclaims, “Physical evidence does not indicate the presence of a third shooter. No known evidence exists that anyone had prior knowledge of the killer’s plans.” Wrong on both counts. Here are the facts on the physical evidence:
· Art teacher Patti Nielson was shot by a man from the outside of the school. The bullet penetrated a sliding glass door. That’s PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of a third shooter since Harris and Klebold were already inside the school and had entered from the opposite and lower side of the building. Curiously, no mention was made of this glass with the exterior penetration–a convenient omission.
· Jefferson County District Court Judge Henry Nieto on May 28, 1999 refused to release autopsy reports on victims of the Columbine High School shootings, saying "the community" would suffer substantial harm if the reports were released. This order conveniently included the bodies of Klebold and Harris, so we have no way to independently ascertain the claim that they shot themselves. Once again, no physical evidence exists because it has been hidden by the court.
· The FBI’s notorious ballistics lab did all the certification that all bullets came from Harris and Klebold’s weapons. Of course, there was no verifiable evidence trail produced to prove this assertion. A good evidence trail would have autopsy physicians tagging each bullet as it came from each body and having them analyzed by non-FBI crime labs. The true evidentiary trail probably exists, but is being kept secret because it goes against the stated results. Falsification of evidence is nothing new to government agencies. The FBI has been known to swap bullets at will, as they did in the Oswald-JFK case trying to shore up the lone assassin theory. The government had JFK’s body altered enroute to Bethesda Naval Hospital to remove other bullet fragments and coerced the Navy doctor to change his autopsy report to match the altered results. Similar coercion took place in the Ron Brown autopsy and with Vince Foster’s murder. Incidentally, the Supreme Court weighed in this week on the side of cover-up by refusing to allow Vince Foster’s autopsy photos to be released to the public.
Here are the facts about the report’s claim that no one had “prior knowledge of the killer’s plans.”
· The report conveniently mentions the two video tapes of Klebold and Harris talking among themselves about their bombs and plans, but fails to mention the pre-enactment video made by the Trench Coat Mafia in 1997. This video taped a practice run by the Trench Coat Mafia of this massacre in the actual halls of Columbine High School. True, Klebold and Harris weren’t in this video, but the cameraman was none other than the son of FBI special agent Fusilier, the FBI psychologist who is a paid FBI investigator for the Columbine tragedy. The young Fusilier was a Columbine student at the time and a member of the Trench Coat Mafia. Two of the participants in the pre-enactment video were the Brown brothers, who were at Columbine during the shooting, and who knew Klebold and Harris. John Quinn pointed out something suspicious in the Brown brothers’testimonies about their involvement during the massacre. Quinn said, “It had previously been reported that Brook (Brown’s) older brother was inside the building and this fact was known by the elder Brown when he claims he was warned away from the school by Harris. Brooks uses this alibi to shore up his case that he would never have been involved in any way with the massacre. Another testified that Brook’s brother was on the stairway and was fired at directly by Harris but not hit. What's interesting however is that in their appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show on May 20, 1999, it is the older Brown boy who said he was in the cafeteria when the shooting broke out and he never saw either Harris or Klebold directly!” These are highly contradictory versions and indicate someone is not telling the truth.
CONCLUSION: Whenever multiple agencies of government join together in a massive cover-up of this nature, it always points to a broad conspiracy involving media, federal agencies, local police, and judges. Naturally it can’t be controlled except from the power base of the federal government. Choosing Colorado for an operation like this was no accident. I have detailed before some of the evidence that the Denver area is heavily controlled by multiple black operations of government. The CIA owns and controls banks, airlines, S&Ls, real estate companies and law firms. It also has a black helicopter operation working out of the old Buckley Auxiliary Airfield. In addition, there is highly supressed evidence of a secret underground facility within the new Denver International Airport–which many suspect was the real cause of the massive cost overruns and delays experienced in construction. Worst of all, the government controls many federal and state judges in Colorado and particularly in the Denver district. It was no accident that the Tim McVeigh trial was moved to Denver. My take on Columbine is that, much like the OKC bombing, this was a dark side operation to accelerate an evil political agenda. The Murrah building was bombed in concert with undiscovered agent provocateurs (John Doe #1 and #2) to help the media spin this as an act of terrorism by anti-government conservatives. Columbine’s purpose was to engender a massive outpouring of propaganda for and in behalf of gun control. Both have been only partially successful. Sadly, this doesn’t mean they will give up, only that the carnage is not yet concluded.
JUNE 16, 2000
THE MIA AND POW COVER-UP CONTINUES
Not surprisingly, another report has surfaced about American POWs still alive in North Korea 50 years after the Korean War. A US official apparently told Newsweek magazine that “Since 1996, there have been firsthand reports of American POWs from the Korean War still living in the North.” In the June 19, 2000 issue, Newsweek Beijing Bureau Chief Melinda Liu reports in her article “The Last Casualties,” that there were many more MIAs and POWs in Korea than Vietnam--some 8,100--more than 4 times the Vietnam figures. In the ongoing summit between North Korea and South Korea, the North Koreas are playing the POW card by offering new efforts to account for the missing soldiers. Naturally, North Korea is not admitting there are any live prisoners--only remains of dead ones.
ANALYSIS: The KGB archives showed that there was a systematic effort in China, Russia, Vietnam and Korea to hold large numbers of US prisoners, long after the war was over, and to use them to coerce secret concession from later US administrations. The Russians shipped hundreds to prison camps in Russia and even did medical experiments on them. The worst part of this tragedy is that, since prisoners have been used as an ongoing tool of negotiations, every US administration since WWII has had to know about POW existance and kept that information from the American public. There are multiple pieces of the puzzle that have been exposed over the years, and various Internet sites abound with credible information on this cover-up. Numerous government commissions have been convened on the POW/MIA issue and they have all refused to tell the truth. This is a tragic betrayal and forms part of the web of lies that the US government engages in on a regular basis
JUNE 23, 2000
Many conservatives assume that since the mainstream media is leftist in political orientation, it will always favor the Democratic candidate. This is only partially true. While individual liberal journalists always favor Al Gore over George W. Bush, they will also favor any liberal challenger to the Republican nomination, as they did with John McCain, in order to spite political conservatives. But individual preferences of leftist reporters are only a minor part of the big picture. The real political powers that control the media have a much more complex way of manipulating the media, and reporters must stay in line with that general strategy, despite their personal preferences. The media heads know that political manipulation must be more subtle so as to keep the majority of people believing in journalistic integrity (which is an outright fraud). Furthermore, the Powers That Be (PTB) have gained control of both main political parties, ensuring that they can control the opposition conservatives with their own brand of “moderates” who say the right thing but always do the opposite when in power. In this decade, the insiders have also had to control at least one rival third party in order to keep the political right confused and disorganized. In the 1992 election the PTB called upon government insider Ross Perot to form the Reform Party, specifically to ensure that enough votes were taken from Republican George Bush to ensure a Clinton victory. It was discovered a few years after the election that phone records revealed hundreds of coordinating calls between the Democratic National Committee and Ross Perot. When you look at how easily the establishment powers let Perot into the national televised debates, even after he quit the race and rejoined on short notice, it is obvious the PTB wanted Perot to act as a spoiler. Notice that the media have now raised the barrier to participation in the televised debates to 15% of support (as determined by skewed network polls), almost guaranteeing that Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party--or any other third party-- will now be excluded.
In the current news, if you read between the lines, you can see how the mainstream media is deftly attempting to change political perceptions to produce a very different outcome than in the 1992 election. The Democratic candidate, VP Al Gore, is being weakened by small stories ranging from his verbal faux pas (“I invented the Internet”) to his role as a “slum landlord.” Pundits are lamenting how Gore has not been able to unite the Democrats, and how Bush has “miraculously” brought all the Republican factions together, (which is hardly true). So Gore is slowly made to look shallow and incompetent, dogged by the Clinton sleaze legacy, and Bush is portrayed as the ever-smiling coalition builder. You can also tell a lot by the pictures of candidates the media selects to go along with political stories. When I was the Exec. Editor of Conservative Digest, and had access to the media archives of pictures, I found out what a wide range of photographs the media keeps on file for any public figure--ranging from the beautiful smiling shots to the embarrassing and weird. The current choice in Gore’s pictures often have that concerned look, while the pictures they select for Bush have that happy and successful look. The media will never portray Gore so badly that the public opinion of the left is damaged, but they clearly need to weaken his popularity. Opinion polls are also a powerful vehicle of manipulation. Slowly the pollsters are crafting a tighter and tighter race, with Bush improving in percentages each month. They’re now showing him slightly ahead, which, though probably false, is an effective vehicle to increase tensions and divert the public away from more principled third parties.
Increasingly, independent-minded Americans are getting suspicious of manipulation in the major parties and are looking to third parties for a viable alternative. Third parties represent a threat to the big boys, especially if a third party grows sufficiently large to garner federal campaign funding. What is going on in the Reform Party is a case in point. Having built up the Reform Party in 1992 and 96, by giving it major publicity and allowing Perot into the national debates, the PTB created a political force with major clout--and with some power to change the outcome of any close political race. But because of the middle-of-the-road, independent make-up of Reform Party members, it is structured mainly to deny power to Republican candidates. Now the insiders have a double problem. They need to make sure the Republican candidate is not undermined in the upcoming election, and to ensure that a conservative doesn’t take over the Reform Party and get control of that lucrative pot of $12 million in federal matching funds, to promulgate a conservative message. One of the key principles of public opinion manipulation is to deny the public access to key pieces of information that would otherwise undermine the mainstream liberal position on many issues.
The constitutionalist right-wing of the Republican Party is now a small minority in the nation and is woefully underfunded. But Buchanan’s rise to power in the Reform Party threatens to change that minority voice into a much louder voice. So it will be interesting to see how the PTB work to stop Buchanan. Ross Perot has worked behind the scenes to get his “old guard” party leaders to stop the Buchanan juggernaut at every turn, using procedural technicalities to keep Perot’s followers in control of key positions. But Buchanan’s forces have won most of the battles so far, simply by having the greatest number of credentialed delegates present at state and national party meetings. Buchanan’s most recent victory was in California where the state party tried to deny Buchanan ballot access. Other state Reform Party organizations have tried to disband to keep Buchanan from taking advantage of automatic ballot access in those states where the Reform Party had previously qualified. Jesse Ventura pulled out of the party in Minnesota, taking his followers with him but Buchanan successfully keep the state organization alive, though weakened. Frankly, I had expected the PTB and/or Ross Perot to field a well-financed challenger to Buchanan. I suppose they tried with Donald Trump, but Trump’s candidacy was not taken seriously by most Reform Party members--he had too much personal baggage. Perot himself has not shown any desire to jump in as he did in the past two elections.
It’s my opinion at this point that the insiders are going to try to get the Reform party to split apart, or partially self-destruct. Reform Party members are a mixed lot and Buchanan’s candidacy is driving out most of those opposed to Pat’s strong stands against abortion and homosexual preferences. Just this past week, Pat’s coalition with Reform Party leftist, Dr. Lenora Fulani, fell apart when she withdrew her support and endorsement of Pat. She had agreed to back Pat because they shared a mutual dislike for internationalist policies promoting NAFTA and WTO trade agreements that steadily undermine US factory workers--but with the tacit agreement that Pat would not try to take over the Reform Party organization or push his conservative social agenda opposing abortion. It appears as if Pat has been compelled to do both in order to keep his own “Buchanan Brigades” loyal and to fend off the concerted efforts of the “old guard” to deny Pat the nomination. I have always thought that Pat’s coalition with dedicated leftists was a misguided and doomed strategy. The differences between left and right are too extreme for meaningful or lasting coalitions.
In the end, it looks as if the Reform Party will become a mixed-bag of conservatives and independents that will clearly threaten to take votes only from George W. Bush. This is a problem for the kingmakers in America who want Bush elected Many of the left-leaning Reform party defectors will be tempted to go back to the Democratic party. Thus, in order to preserve a Bush advantage in the election, I predict that the insiders will shove a lot of money at Ralph Nader’s emerging Green Party in the hopes of attracting the disaffected Reform Party members on the left as well as the hard-left Democrats that would otherwise vote for Gore. Ralph Nader is already boasting of major funding coming his way, so it appears as if this process has already started. This strategic could well offset the conservative votes Buchanan will pull from Bush. In the end, conservatives can easily be railroaded into supporting Bush by the media calling it a “very tight race.” The Republicans will then resurrect the old argument that it’s better to have a compromising George W. Bush than an Al Gore. Sadly, that isn’t true. Bush works for the same powers that Gore does, so there is no advantage whatsoever.
One of the reasons the PTB will probably allow Pat Buchanan to hold on to the new conservative Reform Party is that it can serve to make sure one of the more principled third parties does not rise to fill the conservative void in Republican Party doctrine. Above all, the insiders don’t want Howard Phillips’ Constitution Party to become the main alternative to the Republicans. While both Phillips and Buchanan are constitutional conservatives, they differ significantly on specific programs. Buchanan has tended to develop free-trade bashing policies in order to attract blue-collar workers--policies that are not completely consistent with real free-market economics and law. There are other ways of countering the phony free-market initiatives like NAFTA, GATT and the WTO without engaging in anti-free trade rhetoric. Phillips is much less willing to compromise on key issues of principle just to attract votes, which makes his position more sound in the long-term for those who are aligned to a Constitutional position. The Constitution Party hopes to bring popular conservative GOP candidate Alan Keyes on board when his bid for the GOP nomination fails. Keyes is holding out for now, hoping to at least get a spot on the speaking roster at the GOP. This is worth waiting for, since Keyes has tremendous power to sway people toward the conservative position. However, Keyes, like Buchanan, has endorsed some problematic tax initiatives like trade tariffs and a national sales tax that really don’t solve the root problems of government nor the injustices of intrusive and excessive taxation.
To summarize, I believe that the PTB have decided to switch to the Republican Party in this election, with George W. Bush as President. I think the PTB are going to cause an economic depression sometime after the election and the insiders want to blame the depression on a Republican, to further discourage enthusiasm for the free market and induce people to accept the “Third Way” form of economic control. This is nothing more than warmed over Fabian Socialism, where we own our property but the government controls and regulates every aspect. Also, an insider-controlled Republican president like George W. Bush will be able to convince conservatives to go along with more socialist solutions than a Democrat would. Like a previous depression president (Herbert Hoover), I believe George W. Bush will be vilified and repudiated by the press during the depression, preparing the way for a Democratic sweep in 2004 where massive economic intervention will then accelerate. This will possibly be the presidency that will preside during WWIII and the sellout of American sovereignty to the NWO. So, look for an FDR-type Democrat to be in power during this crucial time. Hillary Clinton is being groomed for some national role about that time. I don’t think it will be president, but she certainly is positioning herself to run. They might let her be VP as a payoff to the “feminazis.” She is dangerous in any position of power. Even the PTB are wary of her ambition.
JULY 14, 2000
NEW EVIDENCE OF TAMPERING IN TWA 800 INVESTIGATION
Investigative journalist James Sanders told NewsMax.com that he now has in his possession a pile of photographs taken inside Long Island’s Calverton Air Base hangar (where the wreckage of TWA 800 was reconstructed) showing investigators bending metal on the aircraft shell from pointing inward, to pointing outward.
ANALYSIS: This bolster’s Sanders’ and others’ claims that investigators were under orders from the FBI to alter the physical evidence to show an explosion emanating from inside the aircraft, rather than from outside, as consistent with a missile strike. James Sanders was the journalist who was prosecuted by the government for receiving pieces of seat fabric from the downed aircraft (that the government tried to conceal) showing orange residue of rocket fuel propellant. The pieces were sent to Sanders by an agent within the investigation who knew there was a cover-up in progress and wanted get the truth out. The government tried in vain to get Sanders to reveal who provided him this incriminating evidence of government cover-up, but was unsuccessful. The government was successful, however, in gaining custody of the seat fabric samples so that Sanders would be denied proof of his claims. Other agents inside the investigation reported that the FBI removed any parts from the reconstruction which had traces of the missile explosion and impact and stored them in a separate sealed room in the hangar.
The best analysis to date can document that there were 3 missiles involved in the accident: a Navy target drone and two surface to air missiles each with different colored propellant. This explains why some of the 80 plus witnesses to the missiles saw slightly different launch locations, directions of travel and propellant signatures. The contradictions were used by the government to discredit the missile theory. Overall, the evidence points to a Navy missile test of a new upgrade to the Aegis weapons system gone awry. Such a test, involving Aegis-equiped warships, submarines and aircraft was, in fact, going on in the military warning area offshore Long Island as TWA 800 flew overhead. The Navy drone flew directly underneath the path of TWA 800 on its way to the warning area and the missiles, searching for the drone, probably locked on to the airliner instead. The government, led by the White House, made a quick decision to cover-up this worst of all military accidents, rather than admit blame.
There is another possibility, as well. One of the missiles may have been a “Stinger” missile launched by a terrorist group. As I detailed in a May, 1999 brief, the FBI spent time and money dredging the waters off Long Island looking for a “spent Stinger missile motor” which was found earlier in the week by oyster trawler crews and thrown back into the water. If there was a terrorist launching of a missile, it may have been done purposely at the same time as the Navy missile test in order to provide a cover for the terrorist act. Terrorists only use such covers when trying to blackmail a government secretly.
THE “CARNIVORE” IS HERE TO REPLACE “BIG BROTHER”
Internet privacy groups are outraged by the FBI’s revelations that they have been using a software program called “Carnivore” to perform Echelon-like eavesdropping on Internet e-mail. The FBI claims it is similar to wiretapping, and is always accompanied by a court order. But this is only partially true.
ANALYSIS: Here is what really happens. The FBI gets a court order to eavesdrop on the email of a certain suspect. They walk into the offices of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and demand that they be allowed to set up a separate set of computers in a locked wire cage that will tap the email of the subject mentioned in the warrant. That equipment stays put. Since the subject under surveillance can use any number of pseudonyms and email addresses to disguise his name and whereabouts, the FBI always goes beyond the authorization of the warrant and taps into the entire traffic flow coming in or out of this ISP and screens it for key words. In other words, they use the warrant to get in the door and then track all emails through universal software screening. They call it “Carnivore” supposedly because they are looking for the “meat” in email. I think the other connotations of term are more appropriate to the FBI’s real purpose.
But here is the most important point I want you to be aware of. None of the ISPs are going to protest this publicly or tell their clients about the intrusion. If they did, they would soon be out of business. Most of their clients would switch to a different ISP to avoid government snooping. In Britain, where all ISPs are required to install the surveillance equipment at their own expense, the four largest ISPs in the UK are threatening to leave the country. The government is now considering paying them to stay--but that doesn’t stop the problem. In the UK the public doesn’t have any choice of evading the surveillance because all ISPs are required to participate. Here in the US you have a choice and you need to exercise it now, before every ISP capitulates to this violation of your privacy. Each of you needs to send an email to your ISP and ask them to certify in writing to you that they are NOT hosting any government email tracking software or hardware. Tell them that if they can NOT certify their equipment to be free of government eavesdropping, you will switch to another provider. Let me know what the response is. I can guarantee you that the big ISPs like AOL are compromised. Most likely, so are all the big ISPs. Try a local provider.
MORE STONEWALLING ON RECOVERING WHITE HOUSE EMAILS:
The missing emails scandal in the White House grows bigger by the day. To recap the problem, the White House paid a contractor millions of dollars to design and build an email system that had the capability of hiding emails emanating from key areas of the White House and not recording those emails on the government tracking system--all without the knowledge of the staff paid to monitor the White House computer system. Once installed, a government operative made a minor software change instructing the program to route VP Al Gore’s emails (most of which were about illegal fundraising) to another record keeping system. Judicial Watch’s Larry Klayman has subpoenaed those emails, and the White House has been stonewalling and destroying records ever since. When it was discovered that the numbers of emails in the White House didn’t match the numbers recorded on the official tracking tapes, Judge Royce Lamberth ordered that the “missing” emails be produced. Nine months of excuses later, Judge Lamberth is demanding to know why no results. Now it comes to light that the White House intervened in the choice of the “data recovery” firm hired to find the emails. Instead of hiring one of the 2 or 3 top experts in the field, the White House hired ECS, a minority contractor with hardly any experience in the field. Klayman told reporters at a press conference, "Obviously, they hired the biggest stooge they could find."
ANALYSIS: These time delays are critical for the White House. They are in constant communication with other people around the country in their attempt to manipulate political and other events important to the secret agenda of insider operations. They arrange illegal favors for big contributors, they cover-up details of past and present illegal activities. They manipulate world affairs and have on-going security breaching relationships with America’s enemies. The conversations regarding these activities, referred to as “Project X” at the White House, number in the thousands each month and must never see the light of day. The delays are necessary in order to give the White House insiders time to go through all these records in detail and selectively purge the ones that would prove treason, bribery, influence peddling or worse. The White House has already admitted to “accidental damage” to several backup tapes leaving the data “unrecoverable.” Time has also allowed the White House to purge several contract employees that showed signs of weakness in keeping the White House secrets. Two of these have become witnesses for Larry Klayman’s multi-million dollar lawsuit against the government for obstruction of justice and intimidation of whistleblowers. Mark Lindsay is the White House point man for Project X. Sheryl Hall, the former White House computer manager who was fired by the Clintons, says that with Lindsay in charge, "the American people will not be given this information. There will be stalls... A year from now we still won't have it." Judge Lamberth has the power to hold the White House in contempt and to put Lindsay and others in jail, but for some reason even this man, the best of all the Washington DC federal judges, doesn’t dare push the case to the obvious conclusion. I don’t think there is any doubt he knows there are powerful forces in Washington that can remove him if he goes too far in the defense of real justice.
AUGUST 2, 2000
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP: Masters of Deceit
To a great extent the lies and deception underlying the manipulation of conservative sentiment in the US by the Republican party exceed those of the Clinton Democrats--if not in quantity (it’s hard to beat Bill Clinton on quantity), at least in the level of danger. With Bill Clinton, most conservatives can easily discern his lies and are mobilized to action against him. With George W. Bush and Bill Cheney, almost all conservatives have been suckered into the false hopes of being saved by “true believers” pushing all the right hot buttons--well,not quite all. A good portion of the Bush-Cheney statements are outright socialist in meaning as they cater to an ever-more benefit-corrupted majority of voters. Let’s look at Bush’s highly touted Convention speech in Philadelphia.
He spoke of principles and yet uttered a host of carefully crafted proposals that violate every conservative principle of limited government. They sound nice, but anyone with experience in government knows that to implement these proposals requires socialist federal programs, at increased cost to taxpayers. My comments are in parentheses:
“...extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country.” (This is Marxist garbage thinking. There is no universal promise of prosperity in the free market--only freedom from interference as each person pursues his own interests, fulfilling the needs of others in the process. ‘Every forgotten corner of this country’ implies that the blame for poverty lies in lack of government attention.)
“We will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the greatest generation (egregious flattery), and for generations to come...make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them. (An honest, thinking conservative would try to wean people away from the damaging side-effects of prescription drugs and into natural health and nutrition. This Clinton proposal is a bailout for the big drug industry and is also a budgetary disaster.) To seniors in this country ... You earned your benefits (true only for those who have paid in large amounts to the system--sadly, most current workers will never receive back anywhere near the equivalent they pay in over a lifetime compared to comparable private investments. SS used to be a ponzi scheme. Now it’s an outright fraud since the trust fund has been raided by Congress and replaced by IOUs. It will not be able to fulfill all promises to future recipients), you made your plans, and President George W. Bush will keep the promise of Social Security (impossible! As I said, there’s no money in the trust fund) ... no changes, no reductions, no way. For younger workers, we will give you the option – your choice – to put a part of your payroll taxes into sound, responsible investments...” (He’s playing the benefit-corruption music that people love to hear--promising to continue the nearly unlimited future benefits of SS, while allowing young workers to pay into another private system. While the latter is the only good solution, by offering both Bush is going to transfer the future SS deficit to the general fund--and yet will promise tax cuts in the next breath. Clinton did the same shameless thing in his State of the Union address.
“Too many American children are segregated into schools without standards (Bush intends to back national school standards, which will mean control), shuffled from grade-to-grade because of their age,
regardless of their knowledge (true). This is discrimination, pure and simple (no, it’s permissiveness which Bush doesn’t understand and cannot cure) – the soft bigotry of low expectations (it’s not bigotry at all, but a byproduct of liberal standards in credentialed public teacher training). And our nation should treat it like other forms of discrimination ... We should end it (he means by federal force and intervention. That is the danger of his allusion to discrimination--it implies the justification of federal force, which is very dangerous). Local people should control local schools (nothing he proposes does anything but require a larger federal role, at least in mandates to local districts. In the ultimate sense, he’s playing to a common ignorant conservative notion --that if we let our local officials undermine our rights and force our participation in the evils of public education it’s somehow better than if the feds do it to us) ...Make Head Start an early learning program, teach all our children to read, and renew the promise of America's public schools (there is no “promise” of public schools except to take everyone’s tax money and then control values through a small cadre of credentialed professions. Using the Head Start program as an entry point into universal kindergarten is a long-time leftist strategy that Bush has embraced).
“We will give low-income Americans tax credits to buy the private health insurance they need and deserve.” (Deserve implies a fundamental right, which health care is not. Pushing more people into the insurance trap only forces those people to rely on the establishment medical system rather than good nutrition and prevention. Tax inducements for employers to provide paid health benefits to employees is the foremost cause [after Medicare] for the catastrophic rise in health care costs in the US.)
“We will transform today's housing rental program to help hundreds of thousands of low-income families find stability and dignity in a home of their own.” (This will involve a federal subsidy program which was started in Europe where low-income tenants are allowed to buy their units for pennies on the dollar. While it is true that people take better care of units they own, the heavy discount they receive at taxpayer’s expense is a violation of the rights of those taxpayers (us) who have to pay full value for housing.)
“Racial progress has been steady, if still too slow.” (The inference here is that more federal intervention is necessary. Government cannot force people to accept others without trampling on the right to make exclusionary choices. Most conservatives don’t realize that the right to discriminate in choices of personal or business association is a fundamental right--not an amoral bias. Without this right to discriminate, we are slowing seeing almost every minority group from homosexuals to the obese being protected from negative judgment, all the while making it more difficult for others to be free from unwanted associations.)
“We are learning to protect the natural world around us. We will continue this progress, and we will not turn back.” (This was code aimed at the environmentalist movement hinting that Bush will not sign any legislation cutting back on the onerous and radical environmental regulations that are hampering or destroying many American small businesses.)
“We will enforce existing gun laws strictly.” (This statement has a double meaning. Many existing laws are now anti-gun and anti-second amendment. On the one hand, he is telling the liberals that he won’t try to repeal any of the existing bad law, while making conservatives think he is merely vigorous in attacking criminals.)
Lastly on the negative side, he invoked many references to God, just like Bill Clinton. This is an evil habit of politicians. My research has concluded that the reports of George W. Bush’s womanizing, drug use, and lack of sincere religious feelings are accurate, despite propaganda recently published in the Washington Times showcasing Bush’s religious background. For him or Clinton to play up to God is very offensive to the Almighty, no matter how desperately conservatives may want to hear it.
On the good side, Bush said all the right things about reconstituting a strong military, defending America and cutting taxes. I think he is lying. He knows the PTB intend to give Congressional control back to the Democrats so that Bush will have an excuse not to carry through with this urgent necessity. Of course, even if he does build up the military, it will only be used to further UN “peacekeeping” missions (intervention against any nation opposing the NWO). In the next breath he pledged to work toward continued nuclear disarmament. You can’t have a strong military without a credible nuclear deterrent, so his buying into this strong leftist agenda is telling. But Bush won’t have to take all the blame for breaking his promises to the military. We will have a depression during his administration which will force major budget cuts in defense anyway.
He also promised to protect the American people with a missile defense (just like Clinton). This is a lie of insidious proportions. The ABM system will certainly be the same type being pursued currently which will not be effective nor in sufficient quantity to do the job. Lastly, he promised a full round of tax cuts including eliminating the hated estate tax. But once again, it will be staged so far into the future that the coming depression will overtake these cuts before they are fully in effect.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: WHY DICK CHENEY OVER ELIZABETH DOLE?
What Dick Cheney has is an image that looks very conservative, and indeed, he was fairly conservative as a Congressman from Wyoming (although he stated recently that he would vote differently now if he were in Congress). His wife Lynn (a Ph.D.) is also touted as a tough conservative on education issues. But beneath the surface, the conservative image unravels quickly. Lynn served as head of the liberal National Endowment for the Humanities, and failed to curtail its major funding of liberal causes. To her credit she did stop some of the worst specific abuses, but without hampering the overall system of liberal patronage. This type of leadership only reinforces the conservative flawed thinking that inherently evil institutions (UN, PBS, IRS, public schools, etc.) can be reformed and used for good. The Cheneys also have a daughter who is reported to be a lesbian and who the media will showcase throughout this administration.
Cheney himself is a long-time insider who has risen through the halls of power and wealth by his many establishment connections. Like Hillary Clinton, Cheney was rewarded with insider trading privileges allowing him to amass a fortune after serving in Congress. He served as Secretary of Defense during the Persian Gulf War and thus was co-conspirator in this internationalist scheme to build the NWO, cover for Russia’s secret alliance with Iraq during the war, and allow Saddam Hussein to survive for future Hegelian purposes (creating conflict so as to justify a more evil “solution”). He was selected for multiple director positions at establishment corporations (US West, Morgan Stanley, Halliburton Oil, etc) which enhanced his wealth and allowed him to continue to carry out internationist orders. He went to China during the dispute over China’s military incursions onto Philippine territory in the Spratley Islands, and came out declaring that “China was not a threat to the world, and only had peaceful intentions.” Cheney also was in charge of approving Chinese visitors to US defense plants during the Bush administration. I suspect that George Bush will not be able to play the pro-China card that Bill Clinton has played, and has chosen Cheney to carry on the secret rearmament of China that the establishment has embarked upon ever since the previous Bush administration. Cheney claims to be a fiscal conservative, but he recently came out for government price controls over energy resources.
NOVEMBER 3, 2000
OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT:
Some of the worst legislation these days comes from Republican lawmakers with prior ties to government. Rep. Porter Goss of Florida (formerly of the CIA) has introduced a bill in the House, the fiscal 2001 Intelligence Authorization Act, which contains a so-called anti-leak provision that makes leaking "properly classified" government information a criminal act punishable by as much as three years in prison. There are numerous laws on the books that already make it a crime to reveal classified information, so why this new bill? The difference is that this bill does something new and onerous--it not only threatens the leaker but any person who might dare publish the leak. Like the old British “Official Secrets Act” it attempts to curtail the First Amendment rights of authors, journalists and other citizens who may be recipients of leaked classified material. Supporters try to garner conservative support for this by hauling out the old leftist examples like the Pentagon Papers, but leftists have always had insider access to government secrets. It’s the conservative right that has never had access. The CIA for years has cultivated allegiance from left-leaning journalists by feeding them government secrets so they could break stories that no one else could know--that’s how they become famous and wealthy.
In this case, Rep. Goss appears to be carrying water (perhaps unknowingly) for the dark side of government which is desperate to close off any remaining loopholes that allow disaffected government agents from blowing the whistle on government illegal activities. Virtually every crime committed by the dark side of the US government, as well as the subsequent cover-ups, is classified “top secret,” and they are trying to make sure that those secrets remain covered up. Any person who wades into the details of the JFK, RFK or MLK assassinations, or the TWA 800 cover-up will encounter a wall of official US classified documents, coupled with a multitude of official lies and denials.
Goss says the journalists and the public should not worry because these penalties only affect leaks that are “properly classified.” But that IS the problem--only the government itself and its bought-and-sold judges have the power to determine or alter what is classified. Joining Representatives Henry Hyde and John Conyers in fighting the provision, is Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia who told the House: “This legislation contains a provision that will create – make no mistake about it, with not one day of hearings, without one moment of public debate, without one witness – an official secrets act.” If you want real proof of the scope of the problem, just ask Judicial Watch for a sample of any of the hundreds of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests they have initiated in the attempt to gain access to documents on government corruption. They come back almost entirely blacked out. Every bit of information pointing to government wrongdoing and illegal activities (including the names of those involved) is blacked out or denied outright. When they go to the courts on appeal, judges almost always sustain the government position.
Even worse, when the evidence of wrongdoing is really hot, colluding judges will seal the evidence for 50+ years in official archives to make sure that by the time the public finds out about it, all the guilty parties will be out of office or dead. This is precisely why the FBI files on Martin Luther King were sealed prior to the debate on whether King would be worthy to honor in a national holiday. According to a former Asst. Director of the FBI, who had first-hand knowledge of the facts, 14 of the 15 file cabinets full of the sealed surveillance files document Reverend King’s chronic pornography and prostitution habits, including his raunchy activities while in Norway accepting his Nobel Prize. The other file cabinet full of evidence traces his connections to the far left and the Communist Party. Had the public known of this information, King would have been disgraced rather than honored. What we need is a piece of legislation making it a crime to classify as secret any evidence of a crime committed by government officers or agent. But then again, as long as only government insiders are allowed to view and judge the contents of classified material, the public will never know the truth--except through a leak by some patriotic government employee--which is exactly what this kind of legislation is trying to preclude.
NOVEMBER 10, 2000
MEDIA MANIPULATION OF FLORIDA VOTE: When the media prematurely announced that Gore had taken Florida as the eastern time zone polls closed, many Republican voters waiting in long lines in the Florida Panhandle (still on Central Time) left the long lines and went home without voting. According to a major story by NewsMax.com, Carl Limbacher reported that “Two poll workers said that lines started plummeting [when the state was called for Gore] and they're talking about filing a lawsuit.” The number of voters affected by this media error could run into the hundreds.
OTHER ELECTION RESULTS:
Here are the latest numbers for all the third party candidates:
Nader (Green Party): 2,692,874,
Buchanan (Reform Party): 437,601;
Harry Browne (Libertarian Party): 373,188
Howard Phillips (Constitution Party): 105,070.
We can see that the Nader strategy by the insiders worked. The ballots cast for Nader more than offset all the conservative third party ballots that would taken votes from Bush. Interestingly, votes for hard-line conservative/libertarian parties were the highest they have ever been (most doubled or tripled over prior years), despite the heavy emphasis in the conservative media about not “throwing your vote away” by voting for a third party. Clearly more and more people are waking up to the fact that both major parties are controlled by the same global insiders. On the other hand, this small minority is not growing as fast as the Democratic/liberal majority.
In the New York Senate race, Hillary Clinton won by 12 percentage points. I believe there was significant vote fraud in New York (one of the traditional hot beds of political corruption). None of the polls showed her with any more than a 2 or 4 point lead going into the race, so someone was cooking the results in New York. Sadly, during her acceptance speech the biggest applause of the night came after her remark supporting abortion.
Republican Sen. John Ashcroft of Missouri was given many not-so-subtle warnings not to challenge the election of the deceased Gov. Carnahan who “won” the election on sympathy vote. If it had been a Democrat who lost to a deceased Republican, you can bet we’d have seen every establishment outfit invoking the traditional election precedent--that votes for a deceased candidate are null and void. Suddenly that precedent is being changed for political convenience. While the establishment failed to put the House and Senate back into Democratic hands, they did come close enough to be able to thwart most, if not all, the upcoming conservative agenda. There are more than enough liberal Republicans who will cross over and vote with the Democrats on many key issues.
In other news, CNN is polling people to see if there should be a bipartisan cabinet--a typical example of inventing an issue no one is thinking about so as to produce a desired result. I think we will see a major propaganda onslaught on the new Republican administration to give extraordinary concessions to the Democrats out of deference to this “stolen” election. But clearly Americans didn't vote for bipartisanship, or consensus as the media is trying to promote. They voted because they are polarized and don’t want compromise.
OVERALL ANALYSIS: As I indicated in my special pre-election briefing, the strategy of the insiders to promote a Bush victory may have worked--but just barely . They went easy on Bush in the press in order to build the expectation that he could win. They even occasionally skewed the polls to show him ahead, giving him the benefit of the bandwagon effect. The media was still predictably pro-Gore, but they clearly bent over backwards to be more balanced than ever before--all the while allowing Gore’s integrity to be undercut on a regular basis. The insiders promoted and funded (secretly) the candidacy of Ralph Nader who took away a solid 5 percent from Gore in key states, which ended up being THE key factor in the Gore loss. Buchanan, on the other hand, got almost zero publicity so as to make sure he didn’t detract significantly from Bush’s total. The media powers decided to change the rules of the debates to block third Party candidates from participation so as to limit the ability of the conservative right-wing to attack the Bush-Gore variations on the establishment agenda. If the media had really wanted to kill the Bush candidacy they would have given Buchanan lots of press and crucified what few true conservative statements Bush made. As it was, Bush’s softened his stance on almost every conservative issue in order to please the critics. His version of “compassionate conservatism” was nothing more than the socialism of the Democrats warmed-over--with less money and less enthusiasm. The media approved of and rewarded Bush with all the right (begrudging) words.
Here is what is significant. With all this help from the establishment, the Republicans still lost ground in both the House and Senate. Moreover, Bush is just barely squeaking out an electoral college victory and is lagging in the popular vote. What this means is that it is quickly getting to be nearly impossible for conservatives to win on their own merits, and constitutional conservatives don’t have a chance in this political atmosphere. The benefit-corrupted masses are now clearly the majority. Short of a major crisis that can be laid at the feet of the Democrats, I think we have seen the last victory for even middle-of-the road versions of conservatism in the US.
I was appalled as I watched many different debates on television. In almost every case, Republicans were sounding like moderate Democrats. Democrats were consistently claiming their social programs for the poor demonstrated that they support “family values.” Never once did the Republicans vigorously contest this assumption. They merely tried to say they support these things too, but in a different “smaller-government way.” They could have ripped this fuzzy distortion of “family values” apart by pointing out that social welfare programs and educational welfare programs (like Head Start) take money from some families (the productive ones) and redistribute it to other families. That’s hardly a support for universal family values. Redistribution of productive assets only foments class conflict--hardly a family value. But, in the end it was clear that Republicans have read the polls and have decided to abandon one of the basic premises of conservative and constitutional law--that it is always improper for government to use taxpayer funds to buy specific, direct benefits for minority or majority groups in the nation, whether those benefits be for children, healthcare, or education (today’s three sacred cows).
Although, as I write this, the election still hangs under the threat of Democratic legal challenges, I still believe that George W. Bush is the anointed one, not only because he is the heir to his father’s NWO globalist agenda, but because he is destined to become the next Herbert Hoover (the President in power when the 1929 depression occurred) when the Powers That Be (PTB) pull the plug on the economy. In order to maximize the blame on the Republican Party I think they will keep the markets afloat for one or maybe two more years to give Bush a chance to make his mark on the economy. Then they can blame the coming depression on his tax cuts, tight money policy and “help the rich” schemes. In reaction to the firestorm of criticism of his administration, Bush will then begin the inexorable movement to the left, convincing his conservative base that they must accept socialist programs to save the nation from the economic crisis. I predict, ultimately, that the Bush presidency will be the conservative’s worst nightmare come true--especially with Hillary waiting in the wings for 2004.
NOVEMBER 17, 2000
VOTERS GROW WEARY OF ELECTION DELAYS
Perhaps the only silver lining in the current recount debacle in Florida is that voters are quickly learning how interminable and frustrating recounts can be--especially hand-recounts. While the Democrats continue to push for more hand recounts, as if they were the most accurate way to account for voters’ desires, we now know that hand recounts are the least accurate, and most susceptible to corruption. Election observers have filed numerous complaints about the way Democratic Party election officials in Palm Beach county have been handling the ballots. They tell how the tables and floor are littered with hundreds of chads (the punched out portion of ballots) which had been probed and pushed out from excessive (and perhaps purposeful) mishandling. One thing is for sure--you could recount chad-type machine ballots a thousand times by hand and every time the result would come out different. So where does it all end? How can hand-recounting ever lead to closure in the voting process?
Here is my best guess as to how things are going to end. Florida Sec. of State Harris will close the election with the final receipt of absentee ballots and recounts up to the Sunday deadline imposed by the Florida Supreme Court. After the Sunday deadline Harris will certify the Florida election results for George W. Bush. The Democrats will scream bloody murder and challenge the results in the Democrat-controlled Florida Supreme Court. Meanwhile the nation, psychologically longing for relief, will tire of more delays and start to accept the Bush victory. George W. Bush will announce victory and assign his transition team to prepare for taking office. The Florida Supreme Court will probably rule in favor of more hand counting, unless the Powers That Be (PTB) lean on them. If they persist in this recount charade, the Bush campaign will appeal to the US Supreme Court where the (PTB) have absolute control and the Supreme Court will rule to sustain Harris’ ruling due to the impossibility of gaining a reliable final result by hand counting.
The main reason I’m holding to the assertion that Bush will be the eventual victor, despite the Democratic majority of voters (counting Nader votes) is that the PTB went to great lengths to get him elected and they want to blame the coming depression on a Republican administration. So, despite the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth by the liberal media over Bush’s potential win, I think that’s what we will get. Of course, we will see the media demand that George W. make incredible concessions to the Democrats in response to the flawed election, and the Democrats will have a landslide mid-term election victory in two years that will give them full control of Congress. So conservatives should not celebrate too much if Bush makes it--the stage is set for a conservative disaster in the next four years.
DECEMBER 15, 2000
ELECTION ANALYSIS--SUPERFICIALLY, IT’S OVER
What the world actually witnessed during the post-election debacle was not really a contest between left and right, but an internecine battle between the Powers That Be (PTB) and their Democratic allies on the left. As the insiders do every so often they attempted to switch to Team “B” (the co-opted Republican party) for the next four years in order to set the stage for a major Democratic victory in 2004. But what the insiders never bargained for was how hard it would be to elect a Republican president, given the degree to which the American electorate (even Republicans) have been compromised into believing in various forms of government intervention and delivery of medical, education and welfare benefits. In other words, we clearly have a benefit-corrupted majority of voters in this country, as well as a long list of corrupt election districts controlled by old-line Democratic party machines (LA, Chicago, New York, Miami etc.). They were so effective in delivering a victory to Hillary in New York, for instance, that they boosted her vote total from a negative 1 percent loss to a 12 point victory.
In my opinion, the PTB gave orders to media heads to the media’s evenly-balanced coverage (for the first time ever) of both the Bush and Gore campaigns, coupled with the promotion of the Nader candidacy to draw votes away from Gore, would result in a victory for Bush by about 2 to 3 percentage points. They consistently manipulated poll results to show a popular lead for Bush in that range. They were wrong. They miscalculated both the effect of years of liberal media propaganda in swaying the electorate toward the left, as well as the bigger-than-ever numbers of corrupted votes that the Democratic machines would produce in selected areas. For example, virtually every county in the US has hundreds or thousands of registered voters still on their roles who have moved away or have died. It is a costly and almost impossible task to clean those lists, so it doesn’t happen. Many areas of the country (27 states and 680 counties) have more registered voters than their actual population of voting age adults. That’s a invitation for corruption that, fortunately doesn’t occur in most counties.
In areas controlled by Democratic party machines its relatively easy to stuff the ballot box with fraudulent votes for these non-existent registrants, especially where no ballot is linked by number to a registration. Thousands of ballots can be added without making the totals look out of line. Worse, the insiders underestimated how difficult it would be to shut down these machines once they began to threaten the desired presidential results. The insider-controlled US Supreme Court first tried to issue a weak hint to the partisan Florida Supreme Court, but only the senior Florida justices got the message and switched sides vigorously. Finally, the US Supreme Court had to issue another ruling in more direct terms--terms no lower court could evade or tamper with. The hard-left justices (Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer) dissented from the ruling to preserve the appearance of leftist solidarity, knowing that the majority of other justices would still carry forth the mandate of the higher powers.
The PTB who call the shots could not very well intervene to stop the Gore team directly at the lower echelons without alerting thousands of Democratic partisans to the fact the we have a rigged system in the US at the highest levels. Neither could they tell Al Gore directly to stop. Al Gore’s handlers and promoters have never even hinted to him that he was being set up to take a fall. Gore always felt the PTB were behind him and they led him on. However, since they have no further use for Gore, they didn’t want to risk making him so mad that he might be tempted to blow the whistle on them--hence they kept him in the dark. Gore is dead, politically. He has become the Dan Quayle of the Democratic Party and too tainted by his mistakes (“I invented the Internet,” etc.) to be resurrected politically.
Another reason why the PTB may have allowed this election debacle to go on longer than normal was to induce Americans to scrap the Electoral College system and replace it with a national popular election. A uniform national voting system (computerized) may also be mandated in this change, which would allow the PTB to manipulate future elections in much greater obscurity.
But the saddest part of this whole result is that the conservatives, who think they won, are being taken along for a ride into a “fool’s paradise.” Don’t watch Bush--watch the insiders who are on his team, who influence all his decisions. The pre-election Bush advisor team was bad enough, backed by Kissinger, Schultz, and Scowcroft and filled with a host of CFR, NWO insiders like Condolezza Rice and Collin Powell. Now, with all the media-driven public expectation for Bush to be a “unifier” of the country, even the moderate, pro-defense types in the transition team like Paul Wolfowitz (former Bush administration hawk, and present Dean of the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University) are being pushed aside for moderate-appearing Democrats and others acceptable to the left. Worse, more and more “dark-side” operatives keep showing up on the Bush team. One is Richard Armitage, a CIA operative who worked under then CIA Director George Bush Sr., and who was involved in the shadowy operation importing drugs out of from the “Iron Triangle” to fund black budget CIA operations.
Another “dark side”
addition to the transition team is C Boyden Gray, George Bush Sr.’s
personal attorney, who reportedly played the role of the notorious “Charles
Smith” in the top-secret CIA operation, OCTOBER SURPRISE [source:
Al Martin, “Behind the Scenes in the Beltway” ]. October Surprise was the code name for the CIA operation
that took place in 1980, at the end of the Carter Presidency. The operation involved a deal with Iran to
NOT release the 52 American hostages from the US embassy in Tehran so as to
deny Carter a foreign policy victory and pave the way for a Reagan win in the
1980 election. The CIA promised Iran
arms and Iran demanded that either Reagan or Bush personally fly to Paris to
sign the secret agreement. Reagan was
not, according to most accounts, a knowing conspirator in October Surprise,
so George Bush Sr. was apparently required to go to Paris for the signing. An elaborate alibi was constructed so that
Bush could deny he secretly traveled to Paris on Sunday, Oct. 19, 1980. On Sunday morning, the Secret Service said
he went to the Chevy Chase Country Club for Lunch with now-deceased Supreme
Court Justice Potter Stewart and his wife.
Strangely, Stewart’s wife doesn’t recall such an engagement. According to the Secret Service, Bush and
wife Barbara supposedly visited someone's residence in the afternoon. The name
of the afternoon host was deleted. The
name was later revealed during the Congressional hearings on October Surprise,
but only after the committee agreed to keep the name secret and not to ask the
source any questions (which effectively meant Congress could not ascertain the
truth from the supposed source). The
mystery was finally resolved when the CIA pilot Gunther Russbacher blew
the whistle on this covert operation.
Russbacher said he flew Bush to Paris in a BAC-111 aircraft, which had
been reconfigured to carry a sufficient amount of fuel to travel 3,600 miles
without refueling. The aircraft
refueled in Newfoundland before continuing on to Le Bourget Airport near
Paris. Russbacher flew Bush back to
Andrews AFB in a YF-12A (a two-seat version of the SR-71 supersonic spy craft).
The 3,000+ mph YF-12A apparently allowed Bush to get back in time to
establish plausible deniability that he had been in Paris. The CIA put Russbacher in prison on trumped
up charges as a result of this and other sensitive revelations. See Rodney Stich’s detailed expose of government darkside operations, Defrauding
America (1-800-247-7389 or
SUMMARY: I predict that George W. Bush’s presidency will be a disaster for the American conservative cause. Conservatives will get the rhetoric they want to hear, but the sellout will continue:
1. None of the draconian regulations, executive orders and bad law of the Clinton administration will be reversed.
2. Pro-constitutional, strict-construction judges will not be nominated or approved for the Supreme Court.
3. Dark-side operations of the CIA, FBI, DEA and Justice Department will not be stopped or curtailed.
4. Bush will continue the march toward globalization, even though he will express appropriate concern along the way. The directions given US representatives assigned to UN projects undermining national sovereignty will not change.
5. The sellout of Israel and Ireland will continue through a new, resurrected “peace process,” despite the usual hollow words of support for Israel’s and Irish Protestants’ security. The same old CFR representatives will be leading the arm-twisting in both areas as a hallmark of Bush’s bipartisan administration.
6. Trade and technology transfers with both Russia and China will increase.
7. Relations with the hostile oil states of Iran and Iraq will be effectively normalized, to the benefit of Western oil companies.
8. Defense spending will increase, but so will US intervention in UN “peacekeeping” schemes. More crises will be forthcoming so that the increased military budgets will not have a net effect of increasing US strength.
9. Bush will attempt to enact significant tax cut legislation, but the end product he will sign will be severely gutted by compromise or encumbered by deceptive language. In the end, the tax-cuts, measly as they will be, will be blamed for the coming recession/depression. Bush will then propose new or expanded government programs that would otherwise be anathema to conservatives of liberty.
10. Bush will push for funding of a better ABM system, utilizing the Navy Aegis missile cruisers, enabling the US to “protect our allies” as well as our coasts. This is an excellent system with great potential. Because of this increased effectiveness, the Russians and the Chinese will raise such a protest that Bush will offer to share this technology with them as an inducement to “allow” us to protect ourselves. In the end Bush will be outvoted by a liberal Congress and will settle for the same old failed system the Pentagon is still working on, and deployment will again be delayed.
SAMPLES OF INTERNATIONAL BRIEFS, 2000
JAN 14, 2000
NO LONGER A SECRET: CHINA VIEWS WAR WITH THE US “INEVITABLE”
A Hong Kong newspaper, Chang Min, quoted Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian making the following statement at a December conference in China for top military strategists: “Seen from the changes in the world situation and the United States' hegemonic strategy for creating monopolarity, war is inevitable. We cannot avoid it...The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war...We must be prepared to fight for one year, two years, three years or even longer."
ANALYSIS: This is no secret to US military intelligence, but political pressures from the Clinton White House continue to silence any voices of warning within the intel. community. What US analysts also refuse to talk about is that, despite China’s current non-aggression pact with Russia, China has no intention of being subservient to Russia--ever. This innate hostility of China toward all other world powers will create a situation in the next war where China will look for opportunities to betray both the West and Russia--but only after she milks the necessary military hardware from both.
RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FORCES BLIND?
According to a Knight Ridder news report, “At most, only four of Russia's 21 early-warning satellites are working, according to experts on Moscow's space program. That gives Russian commanders no more than 17 hours --and perhaps as little as 12 hours -- of daily coverage of the 550 nuclear-tipped ICBM silos in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming.”
ANALYSIS: In the first place, it is impossible for any American scientist working with the Russian space program to know this by personal experience. Nothing in the joint space program gives access to the data from these spy satellites. This information has to be coming from Russian counterparts, so it could very well be disinformation. Even if it were true (which it may be), Russia knows that the US has no intention of launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia, so it can afford to feign weakness in this area until it is ready to implement its own strike on the US. By the way, American scientists are in Russia helping the Russians upgrade all of their space sensors and vehicles. NASA allowed the Russians to take charge of and construct all of the critical aspects of the International Space Station, and now must bail Russia out by sending over our latest technology to fix what Russia claims it can’t do. The Russians may well be waiting to upgrade their spy satellites until after they have implemented this latest space sensor technology--courtesy of the American taxpayer.
MORE ON THE CLINTON ABM FIASCO
The Clinton Pentagon announced that it will perform another test, weather permitting, of the new ABM interceptor. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said that the outcome of the test is critical to President Clinton’s decision, expected mid-year, on whether to build a system of 100 interceptor missiles to defend the United States against a limited ballistic missile attack. He mentioned specifically the threat of missiles from North Korea, Iran, India and Pakistan. He only mentioned Russia and China as threats from “accidental launches.” He reiterated the key time limit on deployment to be “five years.”
ANALYSIS: Something is wrong with this picture. This administration’s insistence on delaying an ABM deployment till 5 years from now is very suspicious. There are several other better and shorter alternatives. And, what does he mean by “weather permitting?” What has good weather got to do with a real world test of a interceptor missile system? If it only works under sunny skies, it won’t do the job in combat conditions. And why is it that the two nations that present the biggest threat (Russia and China) are deemed so reliable and friendly that only an “accidental” launch is a threat? Don’t they read their own Intel. reports about Russian and Chinese hostile intentions? They do. All this points to a secret agenda to allow the US to be taken down in a future war.
Here is what is really going on. We know from a secret cable to Moscow and Beijing sent by the State Department that Clinton has reassured Russia and China that he has every intention to use loopholes in the law to make sure an ABM system is not deployed. However, it is becoming more clear that this same Clinton administration is rigging the ABM tests to make sure they are successful. For example, Bacon admitted that this “will be the first time a highly realistic test” is conducted. He claimed that “the first intercept test, conducted in October, was successful, but many of elements were pre-programmed.” That’s an understatement, if not an outright lie. Actually there were 5 initial tests and they all failed. This missile system has no warhead and must physically hit the incoming missile to destroy it. The last test in October (the 6th) was rigged. He said “pre-programmed” but one source says there was a homing device in the target missile. So, what gives? If Clinton wants to scuttle the program, why not let the tests fail? Here is my theory: Clinton isn’t going to be around to see that the program is scuttled. The Powers That Be in America will put a Republican in office, and George W. Bush (though working for the globalists) must make it appear as if he is safeguarding America. The development of this flawed and dumbed down missile system allows the Republican globalists to proceed with the charade of a missile defense without it being effective. Conservatives will go to sleep and forget that Russia has been “allowed” to put at least 3 multiple warheads on their new Topol-M ICBMs in order to compensate for our measly 100 ABMs. Thus, this ABM system, even if effective, is never intended to act as a deterrent to Russia at all.
JAN 21, 2000
COMMENTARY: WHY IS THE US GOVERNMENT ALWAYS ON THE WRONG SIDE?
Here is a rundown of current conflicts and issues that are crucial to foreign policy around the world. In them we can see a distinct pattern of evidence demonstrating that our government is hostile towards liberty, despite its pro-democracy rhetoric. The most obvious patterns emerge as we analyze where the US puts pressure and upon whom that pressure is applied in the various “peace processes” going on around the world. The term, “peace process” has come to mean only compromise--the undermining of any nation resistant to the control of the International Community, or New World Order. Additionally, the US State Department has consistently supported Marxist revolutionary movements around the world, under the cover of supporting selective “independence movements. But pro-free market or pro-western independence movements have never been supported, and have, in fact, always been betrayed. In analyzing these examples we must carefully differentiate between the US verbal position and what the US actually does under the table. When lying becomes chronic, watch only what governments do.
IRELAND. The US emissary George Mitchell only pressures the Protestants to compromise. During the past decade of IRA terrorism, the CIA was one of the prime suppliers of secret arms to the IRA, according to whistleblowers from within the agency--while the US was proclaiming that it would never tolerate terrorism. As the Ulster Unionists are pressured to go through with the present coalition government, giving the IRA an equal share in governing power, the IRA has been required to do nothing except give general promises to disarm. Meanwhile, the US pressures the Protestants to begin reducing police forces unilaterally, without any reciprocal requirement on the IRA. The Protestants are supposed to trust the terrorists while the IRA is now 6 months past its verbal commitment to disarm. Since no one knows what the IRA has, how can they know when the IRA is disarmed? Only the left gets off this easy.
ISRAELI-SYRIAN NEGOTIATIONS ON THE GOLAN HEIGHTS. The secret “working paper” the US presented during the Shepherdstown negotiations this month was leaked to the public in Israel. Syria was outraged, as well she should be for the documents were clearly one sided. The US promised Syria everything she wanted. Israel would pull back from all defensive positions, yield up the strategic high ground and Syria would get several billion in US aid. The US would also pay Israel to resettle the Jews occupying the area. Interestingly, there is an Iraqi oil pipeline to the Mediterranean that goes through the Golan Heights which has been shut off by Israel since the Gulf War. Is there a secret deal with Iraq going on here? With Communist Syria clearly in the enemy camp, and with the Golan Heights playing such a key role in Israeli security and supplies of water, why is the US only pressuring Israel to compromise?
KOSOVO and CHECHNYA. In Kosovo the US excuses intervention by NATO stating that it is in the US interest to defend liberty from aggression everywhere (and that Serbian sovereignty is no shield for tyranny). Yet in Chechnya the US says that it would not be in the US interest to interfere in Russian “internal affairs” thus protecting both Russian sovereignty and tyranny.
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN “PEACE PROCESS.” The Palestinians are in chronic default on all their commitments. Yet we only see pressure on Israel to continue to yield “land for peace.” Arafat reneges time and again on his security agreements, and yet the US government continues to shower Arafat with billions in aid and support. Only Israel is constantly threatened with cutoff of aid and support if she doesn’t comply. There is also credible evidence that the US regularly influences Israeli elections to ensure these compromises will continue. As in the US, both the Likud and the Labor parties are controlled by the same external powers. Both are also acting as a conduit to transfer US technology to China--but there are no sanctions from the US government for this security infraction--only for not giving in to the Arabs.
TAIWAN AND CHINA Never is China pressured to allow Taiwan to be free. The pressure is always on Taiwan to cease from her claims to independence. In like manner, China was never pressured to allow Hong Kong or Macao to be free, but both colonies were pressured to accept reunification with China as their only choice. Taiwan’s recent requests for defensive arms are being stonewalled, while the Clinton administration bends over backwards to break every rule to make sure China receives advanced military technology, even while China transfers some of this technology to other terrorist states around the world in violation of non-proliferation promises. The Clinton administration is presently denying Taiwan HARM anti-radar missiles and AEGIS missile cruisers, while China takes possession of a steady flow of new Russian armaments, advanced fighters and missile destroyers.
INDONESIA AND-EAST TIMOR: Without telling the American people that the East Timor independence movement is Communist controlled, all the pressure is put on Indonesia to compromise. Next will come pressure to “unify all of Timor,” and the UN will push for a “coalition government” between West Timor and communist East Timor. In the end the Marxists will dominate the whole island.
SOUTH AFRICA AND NAMIBIA Both countries were put under intense pressure by Chester Crocker’s US State Department to yield power to Communist-led black majority parties, rather than work out a constitutional system whereby all the various groups could be protected without putting the white minority under the onus of this leftist form of raw democracy. The US consistently covered for ANC Communist and terrorist connections and allowed it to illegally dominate the pro-western Zulu faction.
MOZAMBIQUE As with all other former Portuguese colonies, the US pressured Portugal to turn this colony over to the Communist-dominated FRELIMO, and actively suppressed the pro-western freedom fighters (RENAMO).
RHODESIA/ZIMBABWE The US undermined the Ian Smith minority regime and forced Rhodesia into a black majority ruled tyranny--but not until the Communist Robert Mugabe had secured power over all other black majorities so that the new Zimbabwe would be aligned with Russia.
ANGOLAN WAR The US State Department and Chevron Oil have consistently supported the Russian/Cuban backed MPLA government and done everything possible to undermine Jonas Savimbi’s UNITA anti-Communist forces. UNITA nearly won the war for independence in Angola in the 80’s with the help of South Africa, but now that South Africa and Namibia have been turned over to the Communists, UNITA has been cut off from almost all outside support, escept from Zaire. They are losing ground fast and will probably fall this year. The US and NWO-aligned corporations are secretly funding a private mercenary group of South Africans called Executive Outcomes (EO) EO used to train UNITA forces and is now in the process of betraying them with insider knowledge of UNITA operations.
SUMMARY: As you can see, the US is almost always on the wrong side of liberty, and I haven’t even covered the crucial earlier betrayals of Russia, China, Hungary, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Laos, Iran, and many more. I trust you can see that this litany of losses cannot be explained by mere blundering stupidity or naiveté. The track record of failure is too long and consistent. Clearly there has been a concerted agenda going on for years to foment socialist and Communist movements in order to achieve global change through war. Within the next 4 or 5 years we are going to see the final culmination of the NWO’s century long strategy to create a new global monster that will magically “rise from the dead” to strike the West. Sadly, the wall of media propaganda masking these intentional betrayals is so consistent and pervasive that only a small minority sense the danger. The so-called “demise of Communism” is perhaps the greatest
JAN 28, 2000
EDWIN WILSON--A CASE STUDY IN CIA “BLACK OPERATIONS”
The Houston Chronicle broke a story in January that casts a spotlight on one of the most effective weapons employed by the dark side of the US government to cover up its illegal traffic in arms for terrorists and in drugs operations to fund black ops. It’s about how the government, in collusion with prosecutors and judges regularly send their own agents to prison when illegal government activities are discovered. The key word here is “DISAVOW”--denying the agent his only possible defense: --that he was operating in the employ of the government. The case involves Edwin Wilson who was convicted of selling 20 tons of C4 explosives to Libya in contravention of the US arms embargo slapped on Libya for its involvement in terrorism. Wilson claimed (truthfully) that he was acting on direct orders of the CIA (How else would a civilian get 20 TONS of C4 plastic explosive?) CIA Deputy Director Charles Briggs issued a false affidavit in the case disavowing that Wilson was working for the CIA. The agency did admit that Wilson had worked for the CIA, but maintained that he left in 1971. The Chronicle discovered, through FOIA requests, that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) had directed the prosecutor, Ted Greenburg, to withhold from the jury the truth about Wilson’s secret employ with the CIA: that the DOJ had known and discussed in written memos (not too smart of them) the fact that the Briggs Affidavit was false, and that CIA records showed the agency had over 80 official contacts with Wilson after his leaving the agency. Wilson’s defense attorneys are demanding a new trial from Judge Lynn Hughes, but the DOJ is protesting, claiming that even if Wilson continued to have dealings with the CIA he cannot prove he had orders from the CIA to ship this batch of explosives to Libya. Very convenient.
ANALYSIS: Of course Wilson can’t prove it! The CIA never issues a set of written orders for these kinds of activities. At best Wilson can only prove he had regular contact with the CIA during this period (which the new DOJ revelations confirm). There have been hundreds of these “disavow” trials prosecuting government agents working the “black” side of the CIA, DEA, INS, and FBI. A conviction is almost always guaranteed because either the government disavows any relationship with the defendant, or the judges themselves, working in collusion with the government, refuse to allow the defendant to present independent evidence of the defendant’s relationship with the government (paymaster receipts, bank records, or even written travel orders on government aircraft). Acting on government orders is the only possible defense because the defendants are, in fact, guilty of the specific act they charged with.
Wilson was a “cut-out” for the CIA, which means he “quit” his job and was instantly rehired by one of the many CIA front companies. The CIA has airlines, banks, law firms, public relations firms and many other proprietary companies which act as fronts for the agency. The whole reason the CIA uses cut-outs is so that the government can engage in “plausible denial” if black ops agents are caught, allowing the higher-ups to escape prosecution. It also severs the traceable connection between lower level killings, drug running and terrorist activities and the high level conspirators--making it impossible for the public to see the over-arching conspiracy against the Constitution. That is why this Wilson case is so important. The recent discoveries provide key evidence of direct links between high government officials and the systematic jailing of black ops agents. Now that former CIA deputy Griggs is implicated, they will either call him a “rogue” player in the scandal or simply make sure he won’t be prosecuted since he is no longer in office. The DOJ is deep into these types of cover-ups and they can (and often do) simply refuse to prosecute this kind of perjured testimony--or else they arrange a lenient plea bargain.
Let me broaden the scope of what we know about Edwin Wilson’s CIA career to demonstrate that the CIA sale of explosives to Libya was only the tip of the iceberg. Wilson almost always worked alongside Frank Terpil, another “deep cover” CIA operative. These two were busy working the Central American drug operations of the CIA during the mid 70’s and early 80’s --most notably the coordination of air transport operations between Colombia and Panama during the Noriega years and between Honduras and Arkansas in the Iran-Contra operations where the CIA traded weapons for cocaine. Wilson’s and Terpil’s names surface in the affidavits of several military whistleblowers who were tasked to fly these illegal drug operations. In the early years the CIA didn’t have enough in-house pilots and were forced to use military pilots, telling them these were “top secret” operations and not to ask any questions. In time some pilots become suspicious and began asking questions about why the government was transporting tons of drugs, labeled as “medical supplies” or “vaccines.” The normal excuse given them was that these drugs were for “sting” operations. However, the sheer quantity of the drugs transported soon exposed the excuse as a ruse. Many patriotic military men involved in CIA drug operations during the Vietnam War and the Iran-Contra struggle were fed a false excuse by the CIA, that these drug operations were needed by government agencies to fund the war against Communist expansion since the liberal Democrats controlled Congress and wouldn’t approve normal funds for these operations. Ollie North and John Poindexter were two conservatives suckered in by this ruse. In reality, the CIA was using black operations to build and fund an evil enforcement organization which can control all facets of government during the transition to the NWO. Their purpose never was to destroy Communism.
Col. Edward Cutolo and PFC William Tyree are two of the military men tasked to aid various Wilson-Terpil CIA operations and who eventually paid with their lives by trying to alert the public to illegal CIA drug and surveillance operations. Col. Cutolo was commanding the 10th Special Forces (airborne) at Ft. Devens, MA. when he was tasked by the Army to support a covert CIA mission in Colombia called operation “Watch Tower.” His handlers from the CIA were Wilson and Terpil. This was in 1975, 4 years after Wilson had supposedly retired from the CIA. Operation Watch Tower established a series of electronic beacon towers originating outside of Bogota, Columbia, and running northeast to the border of Panama. With the beacons activated, US aircraft, flown by CIA contract pilots, would fly drugs from the Colombian cartel airfields to Albrook Air Station in Panama, using the beacons to guide their low level flights to avoid radar detection. Cutolo and his crews testified that the drug shipments were met by at least two CIA plainclothes agents in company with an Israeli Mossad agent (Michael Harari) and Gen. Manuel Noriego of Panama (who later became president of Panama). The Mossad works for the CIA in performing hits the CIA would rather avoid.
After operation Watch Tower, Col. Cutolo and a few hand-picked Special Forces personnel at Ft Devens (including PFC Tyree) were tasked by Wilson and Terpil to establish surveillance operations on local and national government officials on the east coast. This operation, called “George Orwell” targeted several key congressman, judges and local prosecutors. They were given the excuse that the Army and CIA needed to find out if any word of operation “Watch Tower” had leaked out. However, Col. Cutolo and his men discovered that Wilson and Terpil were most interested in the scandalous nature of the target subjects’ private lives. Such delicate revelations are often used to blackmail congressmen and keep them in line. When I first read Cutolo and Tyree’s affidavits, something struck me as odd. Why would the CIA task Wilson and Terpil to start a surveillance operation with Army Special Forces personnel at Ft. Devens, who have no specialized training in surveillance (a highly specialized field). This was especially troubling with the knowledge that the dark side of government already has a huge FBI operation which collects dirt on every high ranking official in the US. These files are used to put pressure on Congress and any others who may attempt to expose the conspiracy. So why this duplicate and seemingly less professional operation called Orwell?
Here’s my conclusion: This was a competing operation representing internal turf battles going on within the dark side of government. Several of my contacts have mentioned these turf battles. Within the CIA and FBI, for instance, the head of the agency is always a trusted conspirator, but he must maintain two separate organizations--one with good patriotic agents, and another secret organization for black ops. The “white” side must never know about the “black” side. But it’s even more complicated than that. There are also black operations going on inside the ONI (Office of Naval Intel) the DIA (Defense Intel Agency) and the NSA (National Security Agency). Some of these smaller cells were under the impression they were working against Communism and had no knowledge of the dark side of government. Each was developing under cellular type secret leadership and kept separate from all other black ops so that if it is compromised or discovered, the entire government conspiracy could still survive. For this reason, the DEA will sometimes arrest CIA agents transporting drugs, and the CIA has to get someone in DOJ to drop the charges. Sometimes the CIA lets the prosecution go forward and then gets a friendly judge to suspend the sentence. The dark side of the CIA also controls all federal prisons, (including the private security firm Wackenhut Corrections) so that they can silence former agents in prison who talk, among other things. The ready availability of drugs and contraband in federal prisons is also evidence of this control by the dark side of government
With the frequency that dark-side agents and military personnel are arrested and “disavowed” by the higher ups, many of them have started to set up subgroups and other forms of protection for their own survival. Corruption is also involved in these cases. To avoid direct payments between the CIA and their deep cover agents like Wilson and Terpil, these “contractors” are allowed to skim some of the profits off of drug sales and pocket this as payment. Virtually all payments to the Israel Mossad are made by allowing them to skim profits from drug ops. Manuel Noriega was taken down by the CIA and Panama was invaded with the loss of several hundred American lives because Noriega was caught skimming too much money from CIA and wouldn’t step down. His trial was a fraud carried out with collusion of judges and the press.
In short, I think Wilson and Terpil and their immediate bosses could see that they needed their own brand of protection--especially if they were double-crossing the PTB and skimming millions of dollars. Getting their own dossiers on higher up conspirators would allow them to blackmail enough people to keep them relatively safe--or so they thought. Innocent participants like Cutolo and Tyree were killed by US or Mossad hit men. Wilson and Noriega were sent to prison. In both trials federal judges prohibited the defense teams from introducing any evidence of US and CIA involvement in illegal drug operations. Wilson’s ability to hire a high priced defense team and get the goods on DOJ officials is surely owing to his associates still on the inside. This report is only a brief synopsis of the volumes of information available. For more information you should purchase Rodney Stich’s books, “Defrauding America”, or “Drugging America” There are many other books on the subject, but Stich gives you the most in a single volume. He also has access to the best and most reliable CIA, DEA, and FBI defectors and informants. Call 1-800-247-7389 to order.
FEB 4, 2000
YEAR 2000 PUSH FOR GLOBALIZATION BEGINS IN EARNEST
I wrote at the end of 1999 that US citizens have been deeply probed about how much resistance they would offer to a variety of global agendas. By and large Americans have failed to provide any meaningful resistance. Already we are beginning to see the results. The NWO crowd is moving ahead with major proposals in earnest and aren’t even bothering to be subtle about it. They are on a roll and the tidal waves of change are sweeping in from multiple directions. Let me summarize what is happening.
THE NEW REPUBLIC FLAUNTS AMERICA’S LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY AND CHEERS!
The front cover of the January 17th issue of The New Republic, an old left publication turned politically chic, dramatically proclaims, “America Is Surrendering Its Sovereignty To A World Government. HOORAY!” The editors correctly assume that Americans know nothing about the devastating effects that such a loss of sovereignty would have on taxes, personal liberty, court procedures, property rights, religious liberty and defense (both national and personal). The establishment is learning fast that as long as they shield Americans from any direct effects of UN rule until after the US is irreversibly integrated into global legal structures there will be no resistance. The inability of Americans to foresee the results of globalization and project the theory into practice is a direct result of a public education system that systematically denies essential information about how liberty is maintained and how majority rule in a democracy must be chained to constitutional limitations by tight legal language.
BRITAIN’S PM TONY BLAIR PLANNING A EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE
Even though Conservative Party leader William Hague is no trustworthy opponent of globalism, he let loose a barrage this past week against the secret agenda of Tony Blair’s Labor Party. He charged that Tony Blair, in league with Brussels’ EU leadership, is pushing ahead with plans to create a European superstate, without openly presenting the key sovereignty issues for a vote. Mr. Hague revealed that a series of European Commission proposals published last week not only would further Britain’s integration into the European Union, but would limit a member state’s right to use its national veto. Hague loudly denounced Blair saying, “They are pushing for a European Union with its own government, its own army, its own taxes, its own foreign policy, its own criminal justice system, its own constitution, as well as its own currency - in other words, a single European state....The submission is an integrationist wish-list - the blueprint for a single European state." Hague also correctly pointed out that the EU’s strategy is to eliminate national veto powers gradually by only applying the limitations to carefully chosen “safe” issues, so as to get the people used to the idea. He said: "The national veto would be abolished in areas of social security, social policy, industrial and transport policy, financial regulation and the spending of the multi-million pound structural and cohesion funds." Now, if you think this is only of concern for Europe, consider what the globalists have in store for the US at their upcoming New York Summit Conference.
THE UN’S YEAR 2000 “CHARTER FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY”
The United Nations will convene a special millennium global summit on the future of the world in September 2000. This summit will be the culmination of 10 years of planning and maneuvering, and is intended to initiate the implementation phase of numerous structural UN changes aimed at breaking the UN loose from voluntary participation. The basic document outlining the new objectives was published by the UN Commission on Global Governance in 1995. The latest document, called, “The Charter for Global Democracy” was published on UN Day, October 24th, 1999 and signed by influential leaders in 56 nations as well as most of the “private” Non-Government Organizations (NGO). NGOs are, for the most part, contingencies of leftist lobbies formed to give the appearance of grass roots support, pressuring the UN to continue locking up the world for the sake of environment, human dignity and other euphemisms advocating population and property control. In reality this document is a charter for the abolition of individual freedom and all national sovereignty. Here are the principles enunciated:
Principle #1 calls for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the United Nations. This initiative targets a number of the real international power centers which have never been under direct UN control--the powerful Bank of International Settlements (BIS), World Trade Organization (WTO) Office of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The European left, who controls a majority of the votes in the UN General Assembly knows the UN is only a global government on paper unless it can harness these secret organs of power. I will go into more detail on this EU vs. US battle for power among the NWO elite in the next issue.
Principle #2 calls for regulation by the UN of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an "international code of conduct" concerning the environment and labor standards. I’m betting these controls will not be limited to labor and environment. After implementation, there will be no more safe financial havens to park money privately overseas. Every international financial institution will be regulated and controlled. Also, say good-bye to private corporate rights. Any business crossing national borders will be automatically brought under the powers of international law on labor and environment. All of our “right to work” laws will be overturned within major corporations and the Kyoto treaty will be forced upon US corporations without going through Congress.
Principle #3 demands an independent source of revenue for the UN, such as taxes on internet transactions, taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels, and licensing the use of the global commons (outer space, the atmosphere, oceans, and any crucial environment space that supports human life--what a catch-all!) The worst thing about this proposal is that once the nations assent to giving the UN the power to tax (and this power will, like all evil forms of taxation, begin with very small rate) the UN will have power to raise rates without going back to the original member nations for approval. Like our income tax, its growth will be inevitable.
Principle #4 eliminates the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. This is the big issue. It is aimed exclusively at the US, even though it will be sold to Americans on the basis that it will stop the Russians and Chinese from stonewalling on human rights issues, like Chechnya. Without a veto power, the only recourse for the US to protest any UN decision is total withdrawal from the UN. That would be preferable except that the deeper America gets into participation with the UN, the less likely this becomes, politically. In short, removal of the veto will make the US hostage to UN law without ever having to amend the US Constitution. Our leaders will continually promote the line that we must sacrifice some sovereignty to the UN in order to have world peace. Trouble is, there is no such thing as partial sovereignty. Either you have it or you don’t. Once we start down this road where we “must comply” with UN mandates, our own judges will begin enforcing UN law.
Principle #5 authorizes a standing UN army. The UN wants this in place before the next war so that the structure is there to build a huge army quickly, without relying on US control as in past conflicts.
Principle #6 requires UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies "as part of a multilateral global security system" under the authority of the United Nations. Whatever the rhetoric, this means gun control to be imposed upon US citizens and unilateral disarmament nationally.
Principle #7 requires individual and national compliance with all UN "human rights" treaties and declarations. You’d have to read all the fine print to know the full extent of this threat. In short, it’s nothing but a social rights agenda to mandate socialist redistribution policies, worldwide health care, and to ensure that contraceptives and abortions are available on demand worldwide.
Principle #8 activates the International Criminal Court, making the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and gives individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy social injustice. The right to petition means right to sue any other person or group, causing them to spend huge amounts of money on lawyers in foreign countries to defend themselves against a stacked legal deck.
Principles #9, 10, and 11 are all part of the huge environmentalist agenda. #9 calls for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring "sustainable development." #10: calls for the establishment of an International Environmental Court. # 11: calls for a declaration that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a "high-level action team" to allocate carbon emission based on equal per-capita rights. This wordage forces the Kyoto Treaty upon all nations. As in all Fascist systems, you and I will still own property but they will control it and we will pay for the privilege of implementing their phony science mandates.
Principle #12 calls for the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and “equitable sharing of global resources," as allocated by the United Nations. Won’t they have a heyday redistributing wealth worldwide with this language!
Summary: They won’t get all this wish list in 2000, but if they even get one or two key principles enacted into law (#4,5 or 8) they can get the rest by edict and majority rule.
FEB 11, 2000
THE GROWING RIFT BETWEEN US AND EUROPEAN GLOBALIST LEADERS
Charter99.org, the British Internet cheerleaders for the UN’s Charter for Global Democracy (discussed in last week’s brief) made some sour comments about the lack of influence the UN has in world affairs.
“In many ways we now have world government. [However] It is not to be found at the United Nations. Rather, the UN has been sidelined, while the real business of world government is done elsewhere. Global policies are discussed and decided behind closed doors by exclusive groups, such as the G8, OECD, the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and others. These agencies are reinforced by informal networks of high officials and powerful alliances. Together they have created what can be seen as dominant and exclusive institutions of world government. All too often they are influenced by transnational corporations which pursue their own world strategies.”
ANALYSIS: These cogent comments highlight the visible rift developing between leftist organizations and the US globalist leaders (who have misled European socialists and Communists into thinking they share the same goals). Indeed, the two groups share the same goals about global socialism, but the European left is fast awakening to the realization that NWO leaders have a lock-hold on ultimate power and aren’t about to share any of that power with ideological Marxists and Communists. We will watch closely the negotiations at the UN Millennial summit on Global Governance in September where we will see how the Europeans (who have a majority of allies in the UN general assembly) will fare at implementing their 12 strategic objectives that we discussed last week. About half of these objectives are focused on bringing the powerful independent globalist organs (IMF, World Bank, BIS, and WTO) under direct UN control. In this way, the Europeans can use their majority allies in the General Assembly to wrest power from the US. That is why the Europeans must eliminate the Security Council’s veto power, so that the General Assembly votes (almost all pro-Communist) will prevail.
I don’t think the Europeans will succeed, but this is a source of underlying tension between the NWO leaders in the European Union and those in the US. British leaders participates in both camps: the Tories have been long aligned with the US faction of the NWO and the Labor Party has been allied with the European Marxists. At the present, Labor PM Tony Blair is trying to pull Britain into the European camp, while the Tories under William Hague are beginning to resist. Remember that the European socialist leaders are aligned with the Socialist International--a Communist front, directed from Moscow. That is why Russia’s secret leadership (i.e.:Boris Berezovsky) keeps a physical presence in Paris.
Europeans, being ideological Marxists, rather than simply power conspirators like the US faction, are hostile towards private business. On the other hand, the US faction of the NWO, which currently holds most of the power, is willing to court big business and use those relationships to extend their base of power and financial control. It is this strategy of harnessing and corrupting the corporate financial world that has given the US faction the upper hand in controlling the world’s money. In addition, this split in NWO power may also explain why the Russians are targeting only America and Britain for a nuclear first strike and not Europe. The Russians are, perhaps, much more confident about the level of control and influence they have with European socialist leaders. They don’t trust the Americans, despite American aid and its willingness to unilaterally disarm. Both Russia and China view war with the US as inevitable. What almost everyone else fails to realize, as well, is that China views war with Russia as inevitable too.
IRISH “PEACE PROCESS” FALLS APART
The Irish Protestants have been cajoled, pressured and lied to in order to get them to sign the Good Friday “peace” agreement with the terrorist Irish Republican Army (IRA). At every step of the process the Protestants were promised that if they allowed the IRA to share power in a coalition government, the IRA would turn in their arms. While the guns of the IRA have been more or less silent for 5 years, the IRA still possesses a huge cache of weapons and explosives (thanks, in part, to secret shipments from Bill Clinton’s CIA to the IRA during the early 90’s). Despite all the promises, the IRA has refused to give up even one token weapon as a gesture of good faith. Now, it appears the Protestants have had enough. Last weekend Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble threatened to resign as the executive's First Minister if the IRA refuses to begin the decommissioning process. Mr. Trimble attacked the IRA for falsifying the basis upon which the Unionists and Sinn Fein (the political arm of the IRA) had agreed to share power.
ANALYSIS: All coalition governments with Communist terrorists have, as their ultimate purpose, a Communist takeover of that coalition. The left doesn’t believe in power sharing, except as a means to an end. This was proven in China, Laos, Vietnam, Nicaragua and many other countries whose leaders trusted in the security assurances of the US State Department (which keeps pushing beleaguered nations into these deals). The refusal of the IRA to disarm is a clear indication of bad intentions. Even though the British government took the first steps this week in suspending Northern Ireland's fragile power-sharing executive, I doubt that Britain will give up on trying to force the Protestants into an unwilling peace. Already the media is stoking the fires of danger by saying that, “the reimposition of direct rule from Westminster would result in the horrifying prospect of a return to sectarian violence.” As I will soon report about Israel, the Powers That Be pushing these pro-left “peace processes” often give the “go ahead” to terrorists to continue the bombings and killings so as to force unwilling parties back to the table and undermine the public will to oppose these false versions of peace.
KOSOVO CONTINUES TO UNRAVEL
Reports coming out of Kosovo paint a picture of increasing ethnic tensions, cross border incursions and an ineffective UN unwilling to curtail Albanian crimes against Serbs. While the military presence of KFOR troops keeps Kosovo from turning into an open battlefield, the fighting still rages at the guerrilla and criminal level. As the sun goes down in border towns between Serbia and Kosovo, Serbian and Albanian guerrillas cross over the rivers and mountains, away from KFOR checkpoints, and attack civilian targets of opportunity--bombing shops and buses, killing older men, and targeting farm houses. The French troops who guard this area have become apathetic about their “peacekeeping” role, realizing they are powerless to stop this low level warfare. One journalist reported seeing a Serbian woman beaten to death in broad daylight by Albanian rebels in civilian clothes. French soldiers refused to intervene. Hatred and frustration against KFOR troops is rising as the terror continues. There were sniper attack on the French soldiers this week, wounding two.
Most Americans are unaware that the UN is spending millions of dollars recruiting policemen from the US and Europe to enforce civil laws in Kosovo. These efforts are completely futile as well. The story of Fisher Strom from Aiken, Georgia is typical. He reports that he was recruited by US officials (acting on behalf of the UN--which is probably illegal) and sent to Kosovo to train police there. He complained, “The United Nations has yet to set up the first court to deal with the first crime. What frustrates you is the lack of UN support. You catch a man burglarizing a shop ... You say, `Don't do this anymore.'...If you come to me and say, ‘This man broke into my shop and stole 500 cartons of cigarettes,' I can't do anything about it. I can arrest him, but they (the Albanians) will turn him loose. So the shop owner looks at me and says, `What good are you?' ``We've arrested 11 murderers in the Podujevo district, 10 of which have been released. They are out on no bond.'' He also reports that the Albanians he was given to train were mostly KLA guerrillas or part of the KLA drug and prostitution network. They weren’t interested in being trained in justice but rather forming part of the official police so they could broaden the reach of their shakedown activities, and cover for their fellow criminals who might get caught. As Reuters reported, “UN and Western officials say that since NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia ended in June, criminals have passed without difficulty into Kosovo from Albania and Macedonia, smuggling cars, cigarettes, fuel, narcotics and other goods, much of it bound for Western Europe.” It is just as bad in Bosnia. Sven Frederiksen, a Danish policeman who worked on the international police force in Bosnia, said that the UN had provided him only 1,970 police officers out of the more than 4,780 promised in a Security Council resolution. "We need international police and we need them desperately." The United Nations is having trouble recruiting police since they have to be induced into leaving existing jobs for the uncertainties of working for the UN.
ANALYSIS: The UN has clearly put this new international police force in a catch-22 situation. Foreign police officers cannot possibly establish justice by depending on Albanian or Serbian authorities since neither will deal justly with the other group, nor will they prosecute their own people. This leads to the inevitable, yet faulty conclusion, that the only solution is to impose an external UN judicial system on the Balkans. That happens to be exactly what the UN wants, worldwide, and yet it still lacks the official authority to establish such a force. Thus, the UN is more than willing to let this situation fester until the cry for an official UN international police force gathers strength. Unwittingly, these police officers are being used to propagandize for this larger globalist goal.
FEB 18, 2000
WIRETAPPING THE INTERNET
Last week’s hacking of the nation’s big Internet websites hase provided Big Sister, Janet Reno with all the excuse she needs to demand that Congress give the Justice Department power to monitor and investigate the origins of all Internet communications. This week’s trouble was not due to hacking in the traditional sense. The targeted websites were not invaded by firewall penetration. Rather the hackers (whoever they were) flooded certain high profile websites like Yahoo! with millions of data hits causing website servers to become overloaded. There isn’t any easy way to prevent this kind of attack since it is hard to tell the difference between high demand from legitimate web clients and a dedicated crasher. In this case hackers penetrated hundreds of individual computers around the world, and downloaded a small program that turned those computers into “hosts” for the hacker. At a prearranged signal, those host computers were instructed to send out a stream of data or requests for data from the websites targeted for shutdown. Bingo--instant overload! While this is theoretically simple, it is no small feat to do in reality, and requires a lot of insider knowledge about many different corporate and university systems around the country. Strangely, several groups--all foreign--have claimed responsibility, which is even less credible.
ANALYSIS: I smell a rat here. This is simply too convenient a “crisis” to be coincidental. The US government has been hungry for an excuse to legally tap the whole Internet. Presently, they can only monitor parts of the Internet randomly and hope to pick up key words (as with the ECHELON communications surveillance system) that would flag druggies and other “enemies of the state” for direct wire taps later on. Even the previous damage caused by viruses and hackers could not, heretofore, give RENO the excuse to tap the whole net. Hackers who invade a site usually work from one or two launch points, which can be traced with some success using existing means. But this latest “distributed” type of attack would require hundreds of traces, and even when individual host computers are discovered, one has to track down the hacker who planted the program on those specific computers--a very difficult task.
So now Reno has a problem that can only be solved (so she claims) by a congressional grant of power that allows the government to install full time tracking equipment on the entire telephone network--including the servers of every Internet Service Provider (ISP) in the country. Don’t be shocked, because the government has already been granted the power to do this on major telephone exchanges to facilitate phone wire taps--making legal what they actually had been doing illegally for years (with the collusion of AT&T). But now Reno wants $240 million dollars to expand this tapping equipment to every ISP in the nation so that the entire Net can be tapped. Naturally the EU and Britain are following suit with nearly identical proposals in Europe. A new British proposal compels their ISPs to provide "reasonable interception capabilities" for the British authorities. It would force ISPs to hand over data traffic information, email destinations, Web site visits, and IP names--all without a warrant.
Even Russia is getting in on the act with their new SORN proposal. The only difference is that the Russian thugs in the FSB (new acronym for the KGB) want the poor Russian ISPs to pay for this equipment themselves--about $10,000 for each site, which would bankrupt most small Web server companies. Of course, the FSB thinks this would be great, leaving fewer physical locations to control and monitor. Expect to see a massive outcry from the Internet community over this one. If Reno’s wish list is defeated, it won’t be as easy for her to bypass the law as in prior years. Many smaller ISP owners are very privacy oriented and won’t acquiesce to government pressure as easily as has AOL, Intel, and Microsoft.
FEB 25, 2000
ISRAEL’S BARAK ADMITS INTENT TO WITHDRAW UNILATERALLY FROM LEBANON
As I told my readers last week, Israel’s leaders have already secretly agreed to withdraw from their northern security zone in Lebanon including the strategic Golan Heights, in order to placate demands from European and US leaders. NWO leaders are intent upon imposing a Bosnian style “peacekeeping solution” on Israel, reducing Israeli borders and partitioning Jerusalem among the conflicting parties. Frankly, they need a war to create sufficient conflict to justify global intervention. Thus, the incremental weakening of Israel’s security boundaries is essential to making her more vulnerable to attack. The Jerusalem Post admitted that “Barak has promised a withdrawal by July and has indicated Israel will pull out of southern Lebanon even without an agreement.” This concession does not presently include withdrawal from the Golan--at least not yet. While it appears on the surface that Israel’s latest retaliatory attacks in Lebanon were meant to act as a strong deterrent to Hezbollah guerrillas, every savvy Israeli military tactician knows that pulling Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) back to the southern border of Lebanon will only weaken that deterrent power. No longer will Israel have the luxury of a declared 12 mile buffer zone that heretofore allowed her forces to attack any Hezbollah guerrillas as they were approaching, either to set up rocket firing positions or to execute hit and run attacks. After the pull back, Hezbollah can launch rockets more easily into Israeli settlements on and around the Golan Heights, from positions much closer to their targets, thus producing more casualties. The more casualties, the more Israeli leaders can induce the public to agree to further withdrawals and forced resettlement of the hard-line settlers. What you must understand is that the real issue is NOT Israeli security, as in years past. The hidden agenda is to reduce Israeli resistance to the costly and unpopular removal of all these hard won Jewish settlements in northern Israel. In typical Hegelian dialectic, Israeli leaders have secretly agreed to allow conflict to promote these “solutions.”
In what appeared to be a major gaff, Defense Minister Levy fanned the fires of liberal indignation as he called for more “death for death” retaliation. But this time he mentioned killing a “child for a child.” I’m not sure this was wholly unintentional. Israel’s retaliation against terrorism has been a powerful deterrent in the past, but now, with Levy’s inflammatory and unpopular pronouncement before the Knesset, the liberal press has got an issue upon which they can successfully attack all retaliation on principle. The press is technically right--even though Israeli children are killed by terrorists, no civilized nation goes out to target other children in return. And that’s just the point. Levy knew that has never been the policy of Israel. So why make such an inflammatory statement at this point in time? It used to be that every terrorist attack bolstered Israeli resolve, but now with subtle manipulations of sensitive issues like this, more violence seems to be undermining the determination to resist.
In other news, Israel’s PM Ehud Barak picked up on and supported Russia’s propaganda line about the Chechens being terrorists, responsible for the three apartment bombings in Moscow. Barak said, “Russia’s action in the fight against terrorism in Chechnya is in the interests of the rest of the world.” There was not a word about Russia’s barbaric and ongoing genocide of civilians and their torture and mutilation of Chechen civilian males. It is strangely ironic for Israel to be defending Russian butchery. There were no Israeli interests here that even required a public statement by the PM--only Barak’s apparent need to respond to pressure from his NWO controllers to further the propaganda line against Chechen independence.
At the same time, Barak took up the call for complete isolation of Austria due to its inclusion of the right wing Freedom Party (FP) in Vienna’s new coalition government. The FP’s leader Joerg Haider (who is not in the government) had made a complimentary remark about Nazi administrative efficiency, and has since apologized. The EU went ballistic over the remarks, although they welcome former East German Communists with open arms and allow them to serve in a wide variety of positions. Since when are former Communists less evil than Nazis? Given the huge similarity between these two evil forms of socialism, I find Israel’s and the EU’s preference for Communists highly suspicious. The left has merely shifted the Nazis from the left to the right side of the political spectrum so that they can conveniently vilify by association every new right wing, pro-free market party that threatens their current monopoly on power. Israel went so far as to recall its ambassador. I might remind Ehud Barak that bad as the Nazis were (and Haider is no Nazi), the Russians, whom he is praising, have killed millions more people, including Jews, than the Germans ever did. I believe Barak’s presumed sensitivity to the Haider issue has more to do with being a NWO lackey than with any real protestations against Jewish holocausts, whether Russian or German. In a special issue in April, I will provide a synopsis of the history of the NWO’s hidden collusion with Israeli leaders of both major parties.
MARCH 10, 2000
THE FED INVITES DOLLARIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA
The Federal Reserve held a meeting of central bank leaders from Argentina, Brazil and Mexico on March 6 and 7 in Dallas, Texas to invite these three nations to consider the advantages of adopting the US dollar as their official currency. Ecuador is already working closely with the Federal Reserve to implement dollarization in that unstable nation, although there is considerable opposition. The left sees this move, which seems to promise economic salvation, as a covert effort to bring Ecuador under NWO control.
ANALYSIS: Latin American Marxists are right. The IMF and Federal Reserve are pushing dollarization, ostensibly to help inflation ravaged nations like Ecuador and Brazil to stabilize their economies, but in reality, there is a trap involved. Each nation that starts using the US dollar as its official currency loses financial sovereignty and becomes hostage to the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve. If the Fed has to bail out the US economy by rapid inflation, every country that is using dollars will see those dollars depreciate. In the short term, Latin American countries can only benefit from this regimen. These countries are some of the most notorious inflators of currency in the history of the world, and need to be stripped of that power to inflate. No government should possess this power to debase value. Eventually, the NWO elite want all of Europe strapped to the Euro and all the Americas chained to the dollar. This will lead the way to regional monetary control, as part of the NWO.
There is a hidden benefit in all of this to the Fed and the US dollar. The Fed has been inflating the dollar at high rates for over 30 years. The only reason this hasn’t shown up as hyper inflation here in America, as in Latin America, is that a huge portion of these dollars have been absorbed by international trade around the world. This dollarization of international trade has given the US unprecedented powers over world commerce, and has allowed the US government to spend with near abandon without having to face the inflationary consequences of such profligate spending, not to mention the higher tax rates needed to finance such practices. Now that Europe is trying to actively undermine US financial hegemony, there is a concerted attempt to replace the dollar with the Euro for international trade in Europe and the Middle East. I think the US is pushing for dollarization in Latin America in order to provide a secondary haven for those dollars when the dollar loses favor in Europe.
The preliminary vehicle already in use by nations beginning the dollarization process is to establish a currency board, which is a board of government officials tasked with pegging the local currency to the dollar. They do this by claiming to hold in reserve one dollar for every unit of local currency in circulation. This takes a while to achieve (if at all), and must be actively supported behind the scenes by NWO monetary controllers who see to it that currency boards get a lot of loans from the IMF to support their dollar reserve needs. Usually, currency boards do not have full backing of dollars, but as long as everyone thinks they do, the illusion of parity remains. Most Latin American countries fudge the figures so they can still inflate and maintain the illusion of dollar parity at the same time. Over time, the markets discover the hidden inflation, and pressure mounts to exchange inflated pesos for dollars. This market discipline is the only thing keeping government spending in check. Ultimately, the system will unravel unless the country begins real dollarization by putting the reserve dollars into full circulation.
Here are the advantages to the nation using the dollar:
· It lowers the cost of doing business internationally since currency exchange costs are avoided.
· It makes it easier for US businesses to invest in these nations.
· Local interest rates match US rates spurring growth due to lower costs of borrowing.
· Increased investor and business confidence in the predictability and stability of dollar- based prices.
What is the downside? Politicians in Latin America are heavy into buying votes with social benefits and government contracts. Latin American governments are notoriously corrupt institutions. Their people are benefit corrupted and will toss out any government that cannot keep their benefits flowing. Without the power to inflate, governments have to borrow and tax, which is unpopular and depresses the economy.
The bottom line is that dollarization will temporarily add discipline to these countries. Politicians will simply not have the power to inflate, although they can still engage in deficit spending. When they get in deeper than their markets can bear, they will have to come begging to the International Bankers. This is the kind of ultimate financial dependency that NWO leaders are counting on--a financial collar around the necks of every Latin American nation that will cement them into NWO control. Dollarization is the first step toward forging those chains.
ALBRIGHT SPREADS DISINFORMATION TO CONGRESS
In her annual address to Congress pleading for $22 billion to fund the State Department’s “International Affairs” budget, Secretary of State Albright stretched the truth in several instances.
On KOSOVO: “The Kosovo Liberation Army has effectively met its promise to demilitarize. A civilian police is being established and an Interim Administrative Council created.” Sure, they met NATO’s skewed definition of “demilitarization” which meant putting all their heavy weapons in storage depots controlled by the KLA and keeping all small arms hidden “out of sight”. Just this week, the Serbs have complained that the KLA have amassed weapons and troops near the border for a possible incursion into Serbia. Previous briefs have detailed the debacle involving civilian police training in this region.
On IRAN: “There have been unmistakable signs of public support in Iran for a more open approach to the world. We have welcomed President Khatemi's calls for people-to-people dialogue, his verbal condemnation of terrorism, and his regret over the 1979 hostage episode. The upcoming parliamentary elections could provide evidence that the trend towards openness is gathering speed.” The US State Department keeps looking for openings to reestablish aid and military trade with Iran. The US has long had secret dealings with Iran (Iran Contra) and has shipped tons of arms to Iran via Israel. Now the Iranians are preparing their own phony “demise of militarism” with the rise in popularity of President Khatemi, feigning openness with the West. But he is no moderate. In fact, US intelligence has long known that he was chief of Iran’s terrorist section in years past. His public apology for the 1979 hostage crisis is not genuine. Iran is in full scale production of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles with the help of China. US rapprochement is only a cover for secret deals going on right now.
ON ARMS REDUCTION: “Moreover, our Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative (ETRI) has done much to protect the American people, destroying almost 5000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union” This is an outright lie. Virtually no nuclear warheads have been destroyed. All have been returned to Russia for recycling into new warheads--paid for by US taxpayers.
CHINA’S WAR THREATS ACHIEVE THE DESIRED EFFECT
In the wake of China’s White Paper threatening Taiwan with military invasion if it didn’t start serious negotiations on reunification, there has been a flurry of hand wringing and shuttle diplomacy between the two parties and the US. Taiwan requested a US commitment to sell formidable Aegis cruisers to the beleaguered nation to provide a first class deterrent to missile attack. China erupted like a volcano at the very thought of Taiwan possessing a serious missile defense. The Pentagon sent Admiral Dennis Blair to China to reinforce the “official” US position that it will not tolerate an armed solution. Blair backed up the verbal sparring by sending a carrier task force from Japan toward China for maneuvers. Then, NWO henchman Strobe Talbot rushed to the Far East to assure China that the US will not support Taiwan’s independence (the real US position). Meanwhile, CIA chief Tenet assured Congress that China cannot conquer Taiwan militarily--claiming China doesn’t have the naval resources to manage a huge cross-channel invasion. This is not true. While it would be costly in terms of lives lost, China could easily overwhelm Taiwan, if it were willing to pay the price of lost trade with the West.
Even George Bush Sr. showed up in China to pacify Chairman Jiang. Jiang warned the former president that Washington had better “properly handle the Taiwan issue so as to avoid another setback for Sino-US relations". The elder Bush dutifully agreed. His son, George W., was campaigning in Georgia. The Texas governor picked up the cue and said that it was important that both Beijing and Taipei understand Washington's position. “It's important to explain to both governments that we expect there to be a peaceful resolution,” he said. "If there's not, the United States will help Taiwan defend itself." However, Bush Jr. added that the US also supported a one-China policy. That was telling. While ostensibly aiming at China, he was telling Taiwan, “you have no choice but to negotiate.”
ANALYSIS: There are conflicting positions within the US response, but here is the bottom line. Under no circumstances will the US allow Taiwan to be independent. That’s what Geo. W. and every other past US president has meant when they say the US is committed to a “one China” policy. Once we establish this as the base line, we can derive the necessary conclusion that this means one China under Beijing--not Taipei. If the US will only defend Taiwan sufficient to force her into “peaceful negotiations” and will not allow independence as an option, this can only mean that the US will push Taiwan into a Hong Kong type sellout to the Red Chinese. This is a form of fascism in international law--Hong Kong “owns” the land, but the Communist government controls it. That’s not liberty by a long shot, and Taiwan deserves more.
I feel strongly that China has no intention of attacking Taiwan, until she is ready to join Russia in a two ocean war against the West. Then she will gobble up Taiwan in the opening days of the war. China is in the midst of a massive armament campaign that will take at least 5-10 years to complete. An attack on Taiwan at present would instantly cut off all trade with the US, and make it much more difficult for the Clintons to send more military technology to China. China’s purpose in all this saber rattling is to get the US to put pressure on Taiwan and to force the Taiwanese presidential candidates to drop their independence stance. This is precisely what is happening.
As the South China Post reported just this week, “Wisely, all three [candidates] now espouse the same moderate position regarding China: don't bait the Big Dragon.” The veep, Lien, has said recently that when President Lee Teng-hui referred to a "state-to-state relationship" with China last fall, he wasn't seeking independence. Soong, who split from the Kuomintang, but is said to hold many of its middle-ground positions, suggests signing a 30-year mutual non-aggression agreement with China, with other nations as witnesses. Even Chen, the candidate of the DPP, historically the hotheaded pro-independence party, has issued a proposal that boils down to "no Taiwan independence if no mainland invasion." “Pretty reasonable!” says the reporter. Not if you value liberty--is my response. Despite China’s promises, she will never be satisfied with these compromises, just as Hong Kong will someday be fully absorbed back into China.
Even as Beijing was extracting a de facto pledge of “no independence” from all candidates, it raised the stakes. Last week, Beijing Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao declared that if Taiwan doesn't sit down promptly to discuss "reunification," China will attack anyway. This comes right on the heels of threats made by Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Wang Guangya against the West itself. He said, in essence, “If the world doesn't accept reunification, it risks consequences you don't want to see." In short, this is a criminal regime intent on world domination. Appeasement and rearmament of China will not bring peace.
INDONESIA--THE KISSINGER CONNECTION
Henry Kissinger, one of the top operatives within the dark side of the US government, has long been involved in Indonesia. It was Kissinger who, as Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford, gave the green light in 1974 to the Suharto regime to intervene in East Timor to save the small island from a Communist insurgency (FRETELIN). This is the same Kissinger who now backs the UN operation that forced Indonesian-backed militia forces out of East Timor so that the same Communist backed “independence” movement can consolidate power. What’s the difference between then and now? The FRETELIN in East Timor have switched allegiances from Russia and Red China to the NWO globalists, thus making them acceptable players on the world stage.
In the wake of Suharto’s replacement by a semi-democratic system (with strong ties to the military) NWO leaders like Kissinger have had their hands full trying to manipulate Indonesian politics to their liking. It takes a lot of payola and corruption to keep all the rival factions in line. Military leaders in Indonesia are now suspicious of Kissinger, and for good reason. They know their cronyism and corrupt control of military fiefdoms are subject to public exposure, and that Kissinger and the world’s media can knife them in the back at any time. But what the Indonesian military has going in their favor is the fact that a civilian government is virtually incapable of ruling in Indonesia without constant military protection. There are so many armed factions in this disparate nation that the whole thing is a tribal powder-keg ready to go off.
Even Henry Kissinger needs the Indonesian military. One of my subscribers sent me information confirming that Kissinger is on the Board of Directors of Freeport McMoran Gold and Copper--the majority shareholder in the massive Freeport mine in Irian Jaya (part of Indonesia). The Powers That Be make sure that all their operatives are taken care of, financially. Henry probably collects six figures annually for acting as a figurehead board member. The land for the mine was taken from native tribes who are mounting an insurgency movement against the mine and the government that protects it. The military must maintain a substantial presence around the mine in order to deter guerrilla action. Thousands have been displaced by the huge mining operation, and have been resettled to areas that are downstream. The lowlands below the mine are growing into an ecological disaster area due to the huge quantity of mine tailings and chemicals that flow down the mountain into the rivers. The Freeport mine has been under pressure from environmentalists to stop the pollution. The mine’s response is to increase payoffs to key leaders and to trot out Henry Kissinger for a visit to Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid.
Predictably, Kissinger made numerous bland assurances of the company’s concern for the environment. But his visit obviously had a bigger agenda than furthering Kissinger’s conflict of interest. Incredibly, President Wahid announced that he is naming Kissinger his personal adviser on general affairs and socio-political matters. That’s a wide open door if I ever saw one. Here’s what’s going on. Indonesia is being strangled into submission by NWO leaders over East Timor and several other disputes. Bringing Kissinger on board is their way of telegraphing to the international community that they are willing to play ball. It’s a new version of the old Mafia protection racket. Kissinger is far from retired. If you track his travel schedule visiting heads of state, and track who comes to see Henry in Washington, it becomes pretty obvious that this man is one of the Powers That Be.
MARCH 24, 2000
THE REAL REASON WHY CLINTON WANTS CHINA IN THE WTO
Americans aren’t being told any crucial information about the World Trade Organization (WTO). It isn’t, as most assume, a benign committee of bureaucrats helping to facilitate free trade. Instead, the WTO has an entire set of rules which limit a member nation’s economic sovereignty, especially the freedom to discriminate on issues of trade from one nation to another. WTO restrictions even go beyond nation-to-nation trade. They regulate every business within a member nation, if that business crosses international boundaries, and they do so without specific approval of the national legislature. One of the crucial WTO rules (that has special allure for Clinton’s pro-China staff) is that, if a nation negotiates special trading privileges with any member nation of the WTO, it must give those same privileges to all other members. Thus a member nation loses its ability to discriminate against tyrannical nations who engage in slave labor, like China and Russia. For this reason, it is very important the China not be allowed into the WTO. Once China is a member, the US would be required by international law to dismantle all trade restrictions with China.
The Clinton administration has already negotiated a new trade agreement with China, which must be ratified by Congress. Predictably there are secret elements of this agreement and Clinton is refusing to let Congress see the details, claiming “national security” privilege. You can bet that what the Clintons are calling “matters of national security” are really matters favoring China’s military security, not ours. Among other things, Clinton’s trade legislation is demanding permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) for China. This is not expected to pass, given China’s current belligerence toward Taiwan. So, the Clinton administration is looking for a means to bypass this annual battle before Congress. Clinton can achieve permanent NTR with China by simply inducing Congress to bring China into the WTO. The Clinton administration attempts to mollify Congressional concern over China’s abysmal human rights record by claiming that WTO membership will force China to behave, since the WTO charter, (like the euphemistic UN Charter) has language requiring signatories to uphold standards of human rights and democracy. Somehow, I am less than impressed with the role of international sanctions, given the UN’s historical refusal to enforce any such standards upon the world’s worst tyrants. In fact, the UN chief enforcement officer has always been, by secret agreement, a Russian general.
THE BRITS ARE POWERLESS TO STOP INCREASING EU INTRUSIONS
The greatest danger of membership in international organizations is that rules established by powerful international forces, are automatically imposed upon all signatories without any specific debate or approval within the member countries. Most people don’t realize that although the US currently has a veto in the UN, no such veto exists in other international organs that are technically NOT a part of the UN--such as the WTO. Americans can learn a lot from how our British friends are suffering in being members of the EU--a regional government whose tactics mirror those of a future world government.
Britain has agreed, in the past, to some voluntary accommodations with the metric system in order to facilitate trade outside of Britain. Inside the country, the British naturally, still favor traditional English standards in most things. The two systems, in fact, can coexist quite well, just as foreign languages can coexist across borders. Yet, suddenly the Brits wake up one morning and find that the EU has ruled that anyone in Britain using the 800-year-old imperial system of weights and measures, within Britain, is to be subject to huge fines and imprisonment. Diversity of weights and measures is no longer a voluntary option. A common 2x4 piece of lumber must now be called a 5.08 x 10.16 cm board. A pint of beer is now a .5683 liter beer, and a pound of butter is now 450 grams of butter. Millions must be spent to reprint commercial material and to modify measuring equipment.
Britain’s membership in the European Union has also made it subject to the EU’s speech police. Yes, politically correct (PC) laws abound in the EU and are being applied to the UK. Recently, several Christian broadcasters in the UK were fined thousands of pounds sterling for breaching the “hate speech” provisions of the EU’s International Broadcasting Commission. Their only “crime” was publishing Bible quotations condemning homosexual behavior. The Brits are finding it is virtually impossible for them to defend their traditional rights in EU courts, or change the law in an EU parliament. Every EU organ of power is controlled by far left majorities who show the same hostility to British traditions as they have towards Austria’s inclusion of a right wing political faction within the ruling government. As we can see, “hate speech” and the right to condemn or discriminate are only prerogatives of the left.
MARCH 31, 2000
RUSSIA ELECTS VLADIMIR PUTIN AND THE WORLD APPLAUDS
It is ironic, but not unexpected, that the world’s media has broken out into extraordinary praise of Vladimir Putin’s rise to power in Russia. If the world had half a sense of its own vulnerability, it should be worried about the sudden increase in Russian nationalism and military power, exemplified by that rise. On the contrary, the more Putin dismantles the perception of Russian ineptitude and weakness, the more the world’s media applauds. Even the conservative WorldNetDaily.com (which I still recommend) was naive enough to run a huge disinformation piece by a former editor of a major St. Petersburg newspaper (from Britain, I might add), lauding the “sincere roots” of Putin and touting his abilities to curry Western favor and bring capital into the city as its development chief. What good Putin did was clearly because he had an insider’s pull, and not because he was any champion of the free market. Putin’s role as a KGB spy is mostly downplayed, except when an occasional journalist attempts to give him the accolade of “master spy” --as if to improve on Putin’s mystique. More honest journalists have noted that they can’t find anyone in the KGB who can vouch for anything important Putin did while there.
Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russia’s most celebrated novelist and thinker, is also not impressed. Although Solzhenitsyn has in the past waxed eloquent in praise of Russia’s change and in his own disenchantment with Western capitalism, he now seems to have turned sour on both counts. In a recent interview published in Britain’s Guardian, he claims that Russia has not moved toward a democracy or made any real economic reforms. He alone is speaking out against the media’s continued portrayal of Russia as a “blossoming democracy.” “We experienced neither reform nor democracy under Gorbachev or in the entire Yeltsin era,” Solzhenitsyn bemoaned. "The West lived under the myth that democracy had been introduced to Russia under Boris Yeltsin.” He also complained about President Clinton’s naive reference to Yeltsin as the "father of Russian democracy.” “That deserves the most biting scorn,” Solzhenitsyn said. He also doesn’t think much of Putin. Like a typical insider, Putin’s first act was to give complete immunity from prosecution to Yeltsin and his entire group of corrupt ministers.
ANALYSIS: The bottom line is that Putin was a member of the shadowy State Security Committee prior to emerging into the public arena. The State Security Committee is there to control the politicians who make up the democratic facade (like Yeltsin and the Duma), much like our own National Security Council is staffed with trusted insiders who have direct links to the real PTB in America and who help direct the president on foreign and domestic affairs. I think Putin is higher up the chain of command than Yeltsin was, but he still isn’t calling the shots in Russia. There are still other higher powers behind the scene. Elections are there to give both Russians and the world the appearance of democracy and international legitimacy. It is my assessment that Putin’s rise does forebode a change in the grand Russia deception. Russia is beginning to making its final preparations in the next few years for the coming military struggle with the West. The fact that the Western media is fully collaborating with the rise of Russian prestige and power is telling--just as telling as when the media helped Russia foster the illusion of the Soviet collapse in 1989-90, by accepting the phony Gorbachev coup without question.
APRIL 7, 2000
CLINTON'S $50 MILLION TRIP TO INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Democrats and the media complain incessantly about the $50 million spent by Congress on the independent counsel investigations of President Clinton’s crimes and misdemeanors. I’m complaining too, but not for the same reason. The taxpayer got cheated when each of the 3 different independent counsels, in his turn, helped rig the results of the investigation to cover up for Clinton’s worst crimes. Meanwhile, there is nary a peep from the press about the $50 million Clinton and his entourage spent in a little more than a week on his foreign policy jaunt to India and Pakistan--which also yielded few results, and may have even made things worse. The US has very little leverage with either country since both are client states of either Russia or China. Clinton succeeded in either insulting or shunning numerous groups by scheduling politically motivated photo-ops in small villages and then canceling at the last minute. Most leaders of Pakistan and India came away convinced that the entire purpose of the trip was to showcase President Clinton’s globetrotting skills--not to help bring peace. Of course, the press would find it difficult to criticize Clinton since they were also recipients of this taxpayer largess. All major media representatives got to fly along in Air Force 1 and 2. Clinton’s total entourage included over 100 people.
The worst part of this fiasco was that Clinton took along a dozen CH-53 helicopters to provide local transportation. How do you get these large cargo helicopters to India? You load them into giant C5 Air Force cargo jets and fly them to south Asia, using tons of petroleum to refuel them in the air along the way. The trip required 177 strategic heavy-lift missions and a total of 460 separate flights. This included the air refueling and all the spare aircraft that had to be brought along for the jaunt from India to Bangladesh to Pakistan to Oman and to Switzerland. Somehow I don’t think anyone in Washington represents the taxpayer anymore.
MAY 12, 2000
CLINTON’S DISARMAMENT PLOY
In a master stroke of cunning, President Clinton is proposing dramatic unilateral cuts in US long-range nuclear weapons as an inducement to Russia to “allow” the US to build a ballistic missile shield. The US currently has an estimated 6,500 strategic nuclear warheads (no one really knows how many warheads the US may have in its “black” stockpiles). START II treaty reductions, recently agreed to by the Russians, are supposed to bring warhead stocks down to the 2,500 level, but Clinton is proposing a unilateral reduction by executive order to 1,500.
ANALYSIS: Everything about this move is characterized by smoke and mirrors. The media allows Clinton to get away with the impression that he is making some dramatic gesture for peace in order to “defend Americans” from the risk of nuclear holocaust. This is false on all counts! First, Clinton never has favored a National Missile Defense (NMD). He has fought it tooth and nail from the beginning. Through the mediation of US Sec. of State Albright, Clinton sent both the Russian and Chinese embassies a secret cable in 1999 assuring them that he had the legal loopholes to guarantee that no NMD system would ever be deployed. Even if an anti-missile system is built, the ABM treaty enforcers within government (comprising an actual tax-payer funded committee), who manage the defense contractors for the proposed NMD, have made sure that the criteria for the system will make it ineffective–both by its no-warhead, dumbed-down design, and by the woefully inadequate numbers of interceptors proposed for deployment. First they started out talking about 200 interceptors, then reduced it to 100 and now are talking a mere 20-100–all bunched up in one or two fixed locations to make them easy targets for attack.
Second, the ballistic missile threat analysis undergirding this whole ABM decision process has been falsified to justify this anemic missile defense. Russia is not considered a threat even though it is currently building the newest and biggest missiles and possesses the underlying hostile intent. Supposedly only “rogue” states like Iran and North Korea are threats–but these rogue states are armed by “benign” Russia. Incredibly, China, which has actually threatened Los Angeles with destruction, is not listed as a threat either.
Third, the whole rationale of having to “give something up” in order to get Russia to go along is fallacious. On the one hand both Russia and the Clinton administration claim Russia’s military is bankrupt and can’t maintain what they have. On the other hand both the administration and the Russians say that building a NMD will force Russia and the US into an arms race. Which one is it? How can Russia afford an arms race if it can’t afford to maintain what it has? In point of fact, Russia has always been in an arms race and has never stopped. Russia is building new missiles, new submarines, new stealth bombers, and vast new chemical and biological warfare stockpiles. Only its manpower has been allowed to decline to give the impression of weakness. Yet, strangely Russia’s military manpower command structure is kept intact so that filling the lower ranks can be accomplished rapidly in times of war. Russia still runs a command military economy at full capacity, with plenty of funding, thanks to Western “loans” and joint military contracts with NASA, Boeing and other US defense contractors. Russia continues to sell arms to all the “rogue” nations of the world, without penalties from the West.
Even the legal basis for this round of ABM treaty negotiations is groundless. The ABM treaty could have been declared void by the US from the beginning. Russia has never been in compliance due to its illegal ABM system and phased-array radar tracking systems. Only the US abides by the ABM treaty unilaterally–and with a vengeance. Just ask any defense contractor who submits a really effective missile defense proposal–these proposals are rejected as violations of the ABM treaty. Also, the ABM signatory “the Soviet Union” is supposedly defunct, so the US is under no obligation to continue the treaty unless renegotiated with the individual parties.
Fourth, the media and the Clinton administration keep speaking as if Russia’s nuclear weapons stockpiles are slowly diminishing. A case in point is the Chicago Tribune’s claim that Russia has slowed deployment of the new Topol-M ballistic missiles due to funding constraints. Says who? The US has no first-hand information, only optimistic guesses. In fact, the US has never been allowed to inspect any of Russia’s new underground nuclear factories or supply depots–only the outdated Cold-War era bunkers showcased on the PBS Frontline propaganda special last year. Air Force missileers who saw the video shots were suspicious. The Russian facilities shown were obviously so outdated that they would not be considered operational at all. No credible analyst believes that Russia was showing these military yes-men the real stuff. Even the high touted Nunn-Lugar funding by a naive US Congress (supposedly to pay Soviet nuclear scientists to transition to civilian employment) is a ruse. Several Russian scientists have openly bragged that they work a few hours a week on domestic projects just to hide their real employment in military nuclear facilities. In fact, Russia has been given the private go ahead from Bill Clinton to build up to 500 Topol-M and to increase the warheads from 1 per missile to 3, giving them a total of 1500 warheads. The rationale? –To make sure the Russians wouldn’t feel “insecure” about our new NMD. Now, Clinton claims with a straight face that he wants to downsize our nuclear stockpile to 1,500 warheads, and that such a move is going to bring stability. Why not zero warheads? If a little naive trust in the cheating Russians is good, why not go all the way to zero?
So what are Clinton and the disarmament gang up to? As my veteran readers well know, it is my theory that the NWO boys are setting us up for WW III in order to force upon the world a New World Order (with teeth). The destruction of national sovereignty can only be fully implemented following the total despair of nuclear war. But first, they must pacify the Republicans and the American public into thinking they are “safe” by trading a few warheads (that will never be needed anyway–they say) for a brand new (but ineffective) missile shield. In the end, we never get the protection of the shield or the deterrence of a viable nuclear arsenal–because it has been unilaterally dismantled by Bill Clinton.
Russia is paranoid about the US NMD because Russia plans to strike. It is, at the same time, suspicious that it is being set up for a trap. Criminal minds think alike. The Russians are worried the US leaders must be cheating (like they are). So, the US has to dig deeper yet into disarmament to get the Russians to feel confident enough to finally pull the trigger. In fact, the US is hiding a lot of black budget weapons that are going to be dispersed around the world. The NWO intends to prevail against Russia–but our beloved US mainland will receive the bulk of the coming nuclear destruction. This sacrifice of the US is a necessary evil in the minds of the NWO globalists to ensure that the rest of the world is driven by fear into the New World army. Those who think this scenario is unthinkable don’t really understand the kind of systematic evil that exists in the world–that goes beyond the evil of individual men. Don’t let the ease of good times and hopeful thinking keep you from preparing to survive what’s coming. I can’t tell you exactly when its coming, but just like the inexorable movement for total gun control, Russia and China’s march toward striking the West is on the move–and is being assisted and covered up by the knowing collusion of the NWO leaders pretending to defend our national interests.
Once this suicidal disarmament is implemented under a lame duck president (by executive order), you would think the next Republican President (George W Bush) would simple reverse the decision. Don’t count on it. If CFR member, Geo. W. Bush becomes the next president, the PTB will make sure we get a Democrat-controlled Congress as well–not because they want to thwart Bush (who is one of them), but so that Bush can blame a Democratically-controlled congress for holding back his “conservative” agenda. The Democrats and the media will demand that no changes be made in the reduced nuclear stockpile without congressional approval. By then few will remember that the media never challenged President Clinton for acting without Congressional approval and that the Republicans let him get away with it. Somehow Congress is a pussy cat when the Republicans are in charge, but an immutable wall of power when Democrats run the show. Clearly its a rigged game that which we call American politics.
MAY 26, 2000
ISRAEL BETRAYS LEBANESE ALLIES
Israel has maintained a 9 mile wide military buffer zone in southern Lebanon (LSZ) for the past 20 years to make it more difficult for Hezbullah guerrillas to infiltrate into northern Israel. This zone was a shoot-to-kill zone which Hezbullah fighters avoided except during hit-and-run night attacks on Israeli positions and to launch rockets into nearby Israeli settlements. As Israeli troops finished their unilateral pullout from the LSZ Hezbullah immediately began filling in the vacuum. Now Israeli forces must sit on their side of the border and watch the guerrillas flaunt their presence with no threat of direct action against them. Rockets can now be launched from much closer distances than before.
What most Americans don’t realize is that the LSZ also served as a safe haven for thousands of Lebanese Christians who have been allies of Israel ever since Syria took de facto control of Lebanon. The betrayal of Lebanon by the US to the Syrians has been one of the darker stories of the Middle East. The LSZ became a haven of relative safety from Syrian persecution for many Christians. The South Lebanese Army (SLA) took an active role in policing this “demilitarized zone” and was armed and paid by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Most of the families of SLA soldiers moved into the LSZ for protection. However, just as the US abandoned its Vietnamese Hmong tribal allies after the war, leaving them open to persecution and extermination, so Israel has begun to abandon its SLA allies and their families.
Shi'ite militia forces immediately began arresting SLA soldiers left behind by the Israeli withdrawal. The 70th SLA battalion has reportedly collapsed and an estimated 150 SLA soldiers have defected to Hezbullah or the Syrian-backed Amal militia during the past week. Five senior SLA officers fled to Israel, according the IDF sources and many heavy weapons used by the SLA had to be destroyed to prevent them from being captured by Hezbullah.
At the same time, SLA members and their families are desperately appealing for asylum at the Israeli border. This puts Israeli leaders in a dilemma. Due to the secret agreements already signed in Oslo Israeli leaders are committed to curtail future settlements by Jews. With a backlog of thousands of Jewish would-be settlers demanding the development of new settlements, the government is going to be hard pressed to now justify giving housing preference to a huge influx of SLA refugees--and yet they owe a great debt of gratitude to these allies. To abandon them is a great injustice and will further embitter those who trusted in Israeli promises of protection.
One senior Israeli official admitted that the prospect of a massacre of SLA members by Hezbullah and other radical militias is very real. “I am scared that soon they will be massacred,” said Health Minister Shlomo Ben-Izri said on Monday. “We can't leave the Lebanese border while they are massacring each other.” But that is precisely what Israel is doing in its head-long desire to unilaterally withdraw. At least a thousand refugees have been allowed to cross the border, according to one source, but that isn’t enough to save the rest. Moshe Fogel, chief Israeli spokesman claimed that “Israel is going to hold the Lebanese and Syrian governments responsible."
ANALYSIS: In the current climate of capitulation, I believe it is highly unlikely that Israel would go after Syria with any vigor. The world and Israeli press are constantly emphasizing Hezbullah’s ties to Iran, thus making it appear as if Syria is not behind the latest terrorist attacks on Israel. This is only a cover, however. Syria keeps an iron grip on Lebanon and has over 30,000 troops there to enforce its will. I think Iran has taken over the support of Hezbullah to help Syria to appear less involved in the Lebanon conflict. In turn, Israeli PM Ehud Barak can then justify Labor’s determination to concede the strategic Golan Heights to Syria in a future round of negotiations. When that act of betrayal happens, war will come thereafter. If you look at a map of Israel, Lebanon, and Syria the Lebanon security zone is not an additional buffer between Israel and Syria, but rather forms half of a defensive arc that stretches from the Sea of Galilee to the Mediterranean Sea. Giving up the LSZ would be removing half the defensive arc, rendering Israel vulnerable. And conceding the Golan Heights means giving up the other half of the arc, leaving Israel without any buffer at all!
Hezbullah leader, Sheik Nassan Nasralla said that despite the pullout, “a campaign against Israel will go on until Israel moves off Palestinian land.” This remark gives us some idea of why Israel had to do their pullout unilaterally. Negotiations would not have led to a viable peace agreement. In another example of Hezbullah insincerity, in 1998 Sheik Nasralla said, “When the Israeli pullout comes, the Lebanese army is responsible for security, and we will not intervene." Tell this to the SLA families who are being killed and driven from their homes.
All of this adds to the evidence that Israel leaders are intent upon a suicidal withdrawal that is not in the best interests of Israel. Why withdraw from a fortified buffer zone, complete with thousands of Lebanese troops willing to help protect Israel when you know the enemy will immediately come in and fill the vacuum? Israel has been constantly bombarded with propaganda emphasizing the cost in human lives defending the buffer zone, promising that if the irritation is removed, Israel will have peace. Sit back and start counting the cost now that its gone. See if Hezbullah will let the IDF rest. There will be no benefits to Israeli security--only damages: the costs of war will be higher than ever, there will be more refugees to house and care for, Israel’s Lebanese allies will evaporate, and the borders will be more vulnerable than ever.
As one naive Christian broadcaster (CBN) put it, “For Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Israel's most decorated war hero, some believe that this has become one of Israel's worst military defeats.” If the journalist had done his research he would have known that this weak-kneed capitulation is typical of Barak’s real military record--which is kept secret. His hero status was falsified for future political purposes. In one instance he was guilty of deserting his troops while under fire. He was also responsibility for other major losses in key engagements.
If the Israelis think they are getting a “peace process” that will avoid war, they will be disappointed. The NWO leaders will only demand more concessions. From my analysis, I’m convinced these unilateral actions are setting the stage for increased IDF vulnerability that will eventually lead to war. In the next conflict, Israel will face overwhelming forces. The NWO leaders are expecting that this will justify UN intervention and the setting up of a tri-partite government over Palestine. Look at the Balkans. This is a classic example of ethnic conflict allowed to fester in order to justify a permanent international presence. I think they have the same thing planned for the Middle East.
Zimbabwe’s communist leader Robert Mugabe is determined to maintain power at all costs. During all of 1999, and continuing through this year, he has tested the West’s resolve to intervene as he breeches one international agreement after another. After the Zanu party’s proposal for land seizures was rejected as too radical by parliament, he instigated an armed takeover of white farms by so-called “veterans of the war of liberation.” They should be more accurately referred to as thugs and terrorists, for that is what Zanu used for tactics in coming to power. Several farmers have been executed and the rest fear for their lives. Crops have rotted in the fields, unable to be harvested. Mugabe staved off intervention at first by saying these were only temporary squatters. Now he is giving them permanent status and demanding that Britain pay the farmers compensation. Mugabe changes his position daily which keeps the West off guard and delays any need for strong action. So far the West continues to wring its hands, but offers no action.
All hope is lost for fair Zimbabwe elections. Every day the independent press brings new reports of atrocities. As Ross Herbert and Rupert Cornwell of the British press reported, “teachers and nurses (have been) attacked, houses burned and opposition parliamentary candidates attacked....Although Don McKinnon, secretary general of the Commonwealth, proclaimed this week after meeting president Robert Mugabe that he believed free and fair elections were still possible in Zimbabwe and that Mr Mugabe was committed to ending the violence, almost no one outside Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF party agrees.” The reason is the sheer magnitude of political violence.
Zimbabwe’s Amani Trust has catalogued some of the violence this year: 1,107 reported assaults by Zanu supporters on opposition families, nine rapes and 572 house burnings. Twenty-four people have been killed. Much of the violence goes unreported because journalists and local human rights monitors have become key targets. Thousands of farm workers have been forced through night-time "re-education" sessions in which people are ordered to dance, chant and watch as MDC supporters are beaten. The MDC is the main opposition party to Mugabe’s Marxist Zanu party. As a result, thousands are now fearful of taking part in the voting process.
ANALYSIS: The typical British reaction is to call for international monitoring of the elections. But while the West dallies around in the monitor selection process (Mugabe keeps rejecting monitors that may be hostile to him) the number of opposition leaders still alive continues to dwindle. By the time the timid monitors arrive the election process will already be so traumatized as to make it a farce.
Once, when flying to South Africa to observe the State Department sellout of South Africa to the ANC, I sat next to a farmer from Zimbabwe (whose country had already fallen to the Marxists 2 years before). He was upbeat and relieved that Mugabe hadn’t done anything rash. He said he had no intention of leaving. He was sure they were going to be allowed to live in peace. The whites in Rhodesia were clearly unwilling to see that they were being lulled into a false sense of security. Now they can’t escape. Britain revoked all Rhodesian British passports and won’t allow them to emigrate (escape). Other Western countries are now enforcing those policies as well.
It doesn’t look like South Africans are going to wake up to the gravity of their situation either. So far the ANC-Communist coalition has acted with restraint and the world is praising the move to raw democracy. But few realize that Thabo Mbeki, the current successor to Marxist leader Nelson Mandela, was the ANC’s top terrorist leader and is capable of being even more ruthless than Robert Mugabe. Mbeki is currently playing the role of mediator in Zimbabwe, like a fox guarding the hen house. Clearly, Zimbabwe is in the throws of “low-intensity warfare.” The campaign is simple and crude: “vote for Zanu-PF and get free land. If you vote for the opposition they will re-impose white rule. Either way, you will be beaten if you vote for the opposition.” The prospects are dismal all over Africa. The dominoes are starting to fall in earnest.
NO SANCTIONS FOR MUGABE.
Marxist president Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is busy proving the truth of every dire prediction made by African property owners subject to the “one man, one vote” principle of democracy. In nation after nation, black African tribal democracies are turning into “one man, one vote, one time” tyrannies. This year as Mugabe was headed for election defeat in the polls by a less radical black tribal party, the MDC, he began a systematic campaign of murder and intimidation of opposition candidates. After first occupying white owned farms with his former revolutionary thugs, he announced a total confiscation of white-owned farms, without compensation. Now, in a continuing wave of economic terrorism, Mugabe has announced that all foreign mining properties in Zimbabwe will be seized--again without compensation. Where is the international outrage? Where are the demands for sanctions? Instead, it’s aid and trade as usual--especially from Britain, who provides the most monetary support for this corrupt Marxist regime..
ANALYSIS: The only thing that will slow down this process of confiscation is the inevitable destruction of Zimbabwe’s economy. The recent terrorism against white farms has destroyed Zimbabwe’s food export market and will threaten even domestic food supplies next year if carried through to fulfillment. Expropriation of foreign mines will eventually lead to mine mismanagement and future losses in hard currency foreign income. If western leaders think that continued aid is going to stabilize a tyrant’s appetite, they are mistaken. Within a few years, Zimbabwe will be a nightmare of famine and fratricidal warfare that will become another sink-hole for western aid on a much larger scale.
JUNE 2, 2000
RUSSIA AND CHINA -- TREATING OUR ENEMIES AS IF THEY WERE FRIENDS.
On the surface, it looks as if the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. On the one hand Russia and China top the FBI list of 13 countries that are deemed high security threats to national security. The FBI is supposed to dedicate its highest priority counter-espionage resources to making sure these countries do not get access to dangerous US military technology. Yet, on the other hand, the Clinton administration is bending over backwards to facilitate Russian and Chinese entry into every aspect of our high-tech world, from education to the government’s top weapons labs. Consider the following list:
· The US Department of Education actively offers grant and scholarship funds to encourage top science and engineering universities in the US to educate Chinese students.
· The INS gives top priority to Chinese student visas. These nearly exceed the number of all other student visas combined.
· The Clinton administration in concert with numerous high-tech firms has mounted a campaign to increase by 100,000 a year the number of visas given for high tech foreign workers to enter US job markets. Topping the list of desired foreign workers sought by multi-national corporations (with NWO/CFR connections) are Chinese scientists (most were educated in the US).
· The US Department of Commerce actively encourages defense corporations to engage in high level “exchanges” (only one-way exchange) with Chinese and Russian military officials. Visas for such exchanges are almost never denied on the basis of national security even though they involve access to top secret defense plants. Defense contractors have, in some cases, received advice from Dept of Commerce officials on how to structure exports to China in ways that avoid detection and scrutiny.
· The Clinton Pentagon actively encourages and provides funding for all four military branches to carry out military training and exchanges with Chinese and Russian forces. There are dozens of programs ongoing with both countries this year.
· Despite the Chinese spy scandal, the Department of Energy still encourages scientific exchanges of Russian and Chinese scientists at our top weapons labs (these are also not true “exchanges” but only one direction). There are more Chinese scientists at US top secret weapons labs than any other foreign group of workers.
· The Clinton administration encouraged and facilitated contracts by Boeing and Lockheed Martin to set up joint ventures with Russian weapons labs to do joint development on fighters, missiles, and satellites so as to facilitate secret technology transfers.
· NASA has transferred millions of dollars and much of our top space technology to Russia under the cover of bailing out Russia’s portion of the International Space Station. All of the critical sections of the space station are being built in Russia, at US taxpayer expense.
ANALYSIS: Liberals have always been able to pass off these efforts as “non-confrontational” policies aimed at “reducing tensions” and “proving we have no hostile intentions.” How long do these appeasement policies have to fail before Americans will cease to accept them from their leaders? How many treaties do Russia and China have to violate before we stop signing more? How many millions of people do they have to crush before we finally see their predatory nature? Sadly, American gullibility gets worse, not better. In last week’s vote on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, almost every Republican leader in Congress was heard to repeat the ridiculous argument that “free trade will moderate China, just as free trade brought down the Soviet empire.” It’s one thing to have this grand deception (the demise of Communism) cause Republicans to let down their guard about Russian military intentions (feigning weakness before a strike) but it’s a national security disaster to have Republicans buy into the argument that we can accelerate Russian or Chinese reform by giving them billions in trade dollars and facilitating military spending with Western aid and technological transfers. In spite of all this capitulation and naive giving, Russia and China have not become less tyrannical. In fact both are becoming more aggressive. Both continue to build toward a future war with the West.
This is the key issue, and perhaps the only important issue-- that they have every intention of going to war with the West. The insiders know that there is a purpose in facilitating the arming of Russia and China--and it isn’t about campaign contributions. That’s only a minor payoff to keep the Democrats in pocket money. When WWIII strikes in this very decade, and we face a two ocean nuclear war with our measly 300 ship navy, I wonder how many people will remember who armed Russia and China? Sadly, the “day that will live in infamy” (to quote FDR after Pearl Harbor) is happening right now.
CLINTON’S OFFER TO SHIELD THE WORLD FROM ROGUE NATIONS
This week at the European summit in Portugal, in a gesture meant to appear generous and magnanimous to US allies, president Clinton offered to share US anti-ballistic missile technology with all the signers of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. What’s wrong with this picture?
1. Clinton has no intention of allowing a workable ABM system to get into production, so this technology is worthless (no warhead, no satellite guidance, dumbed-down tracking criteria, and slow speed). Even if such a system is built, no one will be protected. The numbers of interceptors is tiny compared to the size of the threat and the Clinton administration conveniently denies that Russia is a threat.
2. Virtually every European leader (being in the far-left faction of the NWO, aligned with Moscow’s Socialist International) has come out against “provoking Russia” with an ABM system. They don’t want an ABM system and haven’t asked for it. So Clinton’s offer isn’t what it appears to be.
3. The Clinton Pentagon is now talking about no deployment until 2007--also the date when Russia and the US are supposed to have complied with the newly agreed downsizing of nuclear weapons. Thats a long ways away. I predict that the US will comply immediately, with great fanfare, and that Russia will find excuse after excuse to delay compliance indefinitely--as they have before.
4. While all the world assumed Clinton was talking about sharing this technology only with our allies, they failed to notice (and the press conveniently declined to point out) that the list of non-proliferation signers Clinton mentioned includes CHINA, RUSSIA and NORTH KOREA--who willfully and regularly violate the provisions of non-proliferation, and who would love to have more missile guidance technology transferred to them.
ANALYSIS: This offer of sharing ABM technology is only a ruse to cover one more attempt by NWO insiders to help Russia feel confident about going to war in this decade. Specifically, it was a repetition of a shared ABM proposal that was made directly to Russia by Strobe Talbot (Clinton’s top disarmament negotiator) two weeks earlier. Russia’s previous response was characteristically arrogant; “We don’t need it.” They denigrated the new ABM system by bragging that their new TOPOL-M missiles have counter-measures able to penetrate such a shield. In fact, they really don’t need the US ABM system--at least for ABM purposes. They know the US isn’t going to strike them first, and Russia intends to lay down such a barrage of missiles in its own first strike that 90% of the US nuclear arsenal will be destroyed (thanks to Clinton’s PDD-60 instructing our nuclear forces to absorb a first strike!).
Ironically, the day following Clinton’s announcement in Portugal (this gets a little complicated), Russian “president” Putin announced a proposal that the US and Russia share ABM missile technology. I guess Russia changed its mind. While they already have an old but potent ABM system (with nuclear warheads that can blast any missile out of the sky, even if it is missed by a half a mile) the Russians would dearly love to have what good US missile targeting and control technology that is slated for our proposed ABM system. Its not our best, but its better than what the Russians have currently. The US reaction was coy. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said it was premature to say whether the technology could also be shared with Russia. “We're going to look at this, and how we do this with our allies, with other countries, on a step by step basis.” What does he mean premature? Apparently he forgot that Clinton and Talbot had made the same proposal to the Russians two weeks before. Funny, how the press never picks up on these obvious contradictions.
And then, to show how ridiculous all the “criteria” are for judging who gets this shared technology (supposedly they must be signers in good standing of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty) the next day Putin announced, in essence, that Russia is going to openly violate the nonproliferation treaty. Putin said that Russia will sell sensitive nuclear materials, even to nations that have failed to sign the nonproliferation treaty if they promise not to build nuclear weapons. This means that India, Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Cuba can buy nuclear material from Russia simply by giving Russia a “verbal promise” The US only responded with “concern.” No aid will be cut off. All technology transfers will continue unabated--in short, business as usual. In reality Russia is already transfering nuclear weapons technology to these nations and has been for years, and the US knows this. So this is not new policy, only verbiage for the Western media to help make it appear as if Russia is somehow doing something novel, and asserting its new found courage to confront the West.
It is amazing to me to see how carefully the media stage-manages all commentary about Putin’s rise to power and Russia’s “new” determination to rebuild its military forces. After covering for Russian secret military preparations for the past decade, now the media is slowly allowing its Western audience to get accustomed to Russia’s resurrection as an international power. Perhaps you have noticed how the media never gives any hint of concern about this new and more powerful Russia--as if we are all supposed to sit back and enjoy the return of the “good ol’ days” of the Cold War. This time around the war will be hot.
JUNE 9, 2000
DECAPITATING THE FREE-MARKET REVOLUTION IN LATIN AMERICA
While begrudgingly praising Chile’s and Peru’s economic revolutions that installed free-market reforms during the past decade and a half, the leftist old guard at the US State Department and the Organization for American States (OAS) have been working quietly to undermine the free market leaders in both nations and reinstate the old socialist order. In particular, both Augusto Pinochet and Alberto Fujimori, the leaders responsible for ousting the Marxists in their respective crumbling nations, have been targeted for extinction.
In Chile, the left vowed never to rest until General Pinochet, who overthrew the Marxist regime of Salvador Allende, was not only deposed but executed. When the massive leftist conspiracy to have Pinochet arrested in Great Britain and extradited to stand trial before a Marxist-stacked Spanish court failed, they opted for plan B: let Pinochet go home to Chile where the US and OAS could use their influence to have the local authorities prosecute him. In last year’s election a new leftist coalition, hostile to Pinochet, was victorious over the conservatives who were in favor of maintaining Pinochet’s privatized social security and other reforms. When Pinochet returned, he was predictably stripped of his “immunity” as a national Senator by the Chilean Supreme Court (stacked with leftist judges) and will now be exposed to a trial whose outcome is predictable. In similar fashion, leftist courts and politicians in Argentina and Uruguay, encouraged by the spectacle over Pinochet, are moving to prosecute patriotic military leaders who took drastic measures to hunt down and kill the ruthless “Tupamaro” terrorists in the late 1960s and early 70s. The leftist courts in Uruguay and Argentina had been protecting the terrorists from prosecution, leaving the military little choice but to proceed by extra-legal means. The left now wants revenge.
In Peru, Alberto Fujimori did not take power by a coup as did Pinochet, but the country was in such total shambles, having been weakened from fighting a guerrilla war with Communist-backed rebels, and on the verge of economic collapse, that he was given strong powers by the legislature so as to make drastic changes that would have otherwise been impossible in Latin American politics. He eliminated much of the corruption in government, reformed the military into a more effective force, and changed the tax laws to encourage growth. All of this has resulted in a high rate of growth for Peru, second only to Chile among Latin American countries. Also, in a dramatic showdown with the far left during a massive hostage-taking drama that went on for weeks, he instigated an Israeli-style rescue that left key elements of the Communist insurgence dead. For this act, he, like Pinochet, is hated by the left. The international media attacked him for using “too much force.” Internal media outlets within Peru began to focus on his Japanese ancestry, calling him by the pejorative, “El Chino”.
In his first re-election in 1995, Fujimori was re-elected by a wide margin. However, once his second term was complete Fujimori was facing the inevitable resurrection of socialist demands for change and more benefits. Social benefits, government sponsored health care and expanded public education are the three most predictable demands the left uses--and also the mostly costly for a free-market to bear. Fujimori compromised on some of these issues in order to maintain popular support. It worked to give him an unprecedented third term, but in the long-term, once a conservative turns down this path, he can never win for long. Each compromise undermines his own conservative base and strengthens the popular base of the left. It’s only a matter of time until the left takes over. For now, the opposition under Alejandro Toledo is turning to the old cadre of international organizations to undermine Fujimori.
A key tactic is to demand an internationally supervised election that will scrutinize and restrict the right while facilitating or overlooking corruption on the left. The OAS, fresh from a victory in forcing the conservative Guatemalan government into a coalition government with Communist rebels, hired one of Guatemala’s most ruthless guerrilla leaders, Eduardo Stein (a Communist), to head up the OAS delegation to “ensure a fair election.” Stein made the usual predictable demands favoring the underdog Toledo--free television advertising and a postponement of the elections to give Toledo more time to build support. All this was justified by charging that Fujimori had an unfair “incumbent” advantage. [I note that the US State Department did not declare Russia’s election invalid even though Putin had a massive advantage over the opposition through the use of state-controlled television networks, which broadcast a constant stream of pro-Putin propaganda before the election.] When none of this had any effect on Toledo’s support, Stein withdrew his OAS delegation of some 70 observers two days before the election, which was a signal for other leftist thugs to intervene and disrupt the electoral process. Some 30% of ballots were ruined or defaced, allowing the OAS to rule the election invalid, without being physically present.
When Toledo got only 17% of the vote in this multi-party race, the US State Department stepped in to rule the election “not valid” and a “serious threat to the inter-American commitment to democracy.” [In the 1980s when the US State Department was intervening in the political affairs of Guatemala and El Salvador, there was a “rule” that was quietly circulated by US embassy diplomats: “Any government you want is fine with Washington--as long as it’s on the left.”] Washington even tried to declare Peru's government an outlaw regime under OAS Resolution 1080 adopted in 1991, which would have required other members of the OAS to engage in collective economic sanctions. Mexico and Brazil led the opposition, reminding Washington that Resolution 1080 is only to be used when a democratic government is overthrown by a military dictatorship. [This resolution was aimed at forcing Pinochet out of office in Chile.] In the end, only Costa Rica (a country with deep links to the dark side of the CIA) backed the US proposal.
ANALYSIS: I want to explain why I have never been optimistic about the partial “free-market” reforms in Latin America. Once a nation becomes corrupted by socialism, it never returns to a free-market by the ballot box. The majority of voters, who, over time, have become corrupted by government benefits (that the free market would never allow), will not voluntarily give up those benefits. That is why it took a fair amount of “undemocratic” force in both countries to make the initial changes to the free-market --in direct opposition to popular support. Both Pinochet and Fujimori made the mistake of failing to eradicate the legal standing upon which government benefits are based, in various sections of their socialist constitutions. Only Pinochet, in fact, had sufficient power to make a clean sweep of bad law--which he failed to use. Fujimori still had to work with a legislature which owed allegiance to benefit-corrupted voters. [Interestingly enough, even socialists, as in Peru or Mexico, will ease up partially on government regulations when the economy is being strangled by taxes and debt--but they only do so to help keep socialism alive--not because they have repented of their evil habits of plunder.] When you leave the majority of voters with even a taste of the remaining benefits, their appetite for more never goes away--it only breeds eventual hatred and resentment of the current restrictions to the growth of those benefits. As a result, during the respite from the high tax and debt burden of social programs in Chile and Peru, both nations experienced not only a mini-boom in economic resurgence, but also an inevitable return of demand for more benefits as the country grew richer. This was predictable, though denied by more optimistic observers.
The international media, the US, and the OAS play on this tension between government restraints and popular demand by putting diplomatic pressure on free-market leaders to give up what authoritarian powers they possess, so that democratically-controlled legislatures can proceed with the inevitable drift toward more social programs. [Notice that the US State Department never pressures Communist leaders anywhere in the world to give up their dictatorial powers or submit to real democratic processes.] Otherwise, trade sanctions are threatened when leaders fail to compromise fast enough. Economic sanctions quickly undermine the conservative support from the business sector in Latin America, which is mostly profit-oriented rather than loyal to principles of liberty. [There are some notable exceptions to this. In Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Peru, and Argentina, there are small cadres of free-market businessmen and intellectuals who are very savvy and principled in their views about law and government. Unfortunately, they don’t have enough numbers or clout to stem the tide of compromise even within the political parties on the right.] As Pinochet and Fujimori came under increasing pressure to yield to more raw democracy, they were required to give concessions to the left and promise more benefits to the populace in order to win elections. But this is never a long-term viable solution for the conservation of liberty. Parties on the right can never out-do the left in their ability to promise benefits, nor will they ever satisfy the opposition until total capitulation to the left is achieved.
BILDERBERGER MEETING IN BRUSSELS
Bilderberger watchers were only able to discover the whereabouts of this year’s secret meeting a few weeks before it took place. There were no leaks this time as to either attendees or the content of the meeting, so security has been beefed-up. But what did leak out was the content of an Aspen Institute meeting in February in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Apparently, the Aspen Institute (comprised of some of the top globalist leaders who attend the larger Bilderberger meeting) was used as a planning session for the Brussels Bilderberger event. The main topic of discussion reportedly centered around the need to develop a new international organization to coordinate and control the world environmental agenda. It is to be structured to have legislative and judicial powers so that international environmental standards can be created and corporations or individuals can be prosecuted for the violations of those standards. Renato Ruggiero, former head of the World Trade Organization was the key speaker on this topic.
ANALYSIS: The environment has become an effective lever of control for globalists. With it they can intervene in property rights, corporate freedoms to do business, production of electric power, fuel use, and even national issues of land and maritime sovereignty. Also of interest is the new linkage between these world globalists and the protesters who have been orchestrating demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle and the World Bank in Washington DC. According to a revealing article in “Foreign Policy,” the official journal of the leftist Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, both demonstrations were organized by Lori Wallach of “Global Trade Watch”--a Public Citizen, Ralph Nader organization. Also noteworthy is that Global Trade Watch and Public Citizen are funded by the Ford Foundation and other pro-NWO foundations which also fund the Aspen Institute, the CFR and the Bilderberger meetings. Ms. Wallach’s interview in “Foreign Policy” clearly shows she is for world government, not against it. My take on these demonstrations is that they were financed by the same power brokers who run the WTO and World Bank, so as to give the media a chance to push the public and Congress into making changes that will morph them into more effective leftist organs of global power. You may note, as I have, that both demonstrations were pushing to force the World Bank and the WTO to enforce radical environmental and big labor agendas. Perhaps this new proposed global environmental control organ will be sold to the world as a way to defuse the pressure on the WTO.
JUNE 30, 2000
PUTIN-BEREZOVSKY LINKS UNCOVERED
On June 13 Russian President Vladimir Putin made an official visit to President Aznar of Spain. On that same day, the Spanish newspaper La Razon broke the embarrassing story that Putin had made at least 5 secret (and illegal) visits to Spain in 1999 to meet with Russian power broker Boris Berezovsky. The details were leaked to La Razon by two different sources in the Spanish Interior and Defense ministries, whose agents had been surveilling a Russian Mafia boss at a villa in Sotogrande, on the coast of Spain's southeastern province of Cadiz. The agents reported that the Mafia suspect was holding regular conversations in the garden with his neighbor--another Russian who turned out to be Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oil and media tycoon (among other titles). Berezovsky is also the former General Secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the follow-on to the old Soviet Union.
On five different occasions in early 1999 it was noted that the discussions between the Russian Mafia boss and Berezovsky were joined by former KGB (FSB) chief and then head of the Russian Security Council, Vladimir Putin. Putin’s movements coming and going were tracked by the Spanish secret service and it was found that he had been flying into the British enclave of Gibraltar, and then sailing by private yacht up the coast of the Mediterranean Sea to Berezovsky’s beach resort, without obtaining a Spanish visa or informing the Spanish authorities, as required. Putin’s visits ceased after he was named acting president of Russia in August of 1999.
ANALYSIS: This revelation is particularly important since it helps corroborate the suspicion that Russia is still run by a secret Communist hierarchy, and not by the so called “democratic” leaders the Western media insists on calling “presidents.” It is my assessment that Lenin and Stalin were the last leaders in Russia where the public dictator was the real leader. All others since then, Kruschev, Breshnev, Andropov, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin were controlled by insiders behind the scenes. What the Western media (who actively collaborated in promulgating the grand deception of “the fall of Communism”) call the “Russia Mafia” are, in reality, the present-day Communist bosses of Russia. I think the media knowingly promotes these euphemisms about a Russian Mafia to obscure the links between these modern Russian oligarchs and the old former Soviet power structure. Even though a few of the international media outlets (Moscow Times and London Times) picked up the La Razon story on Putin’s secret visits to Spain, there was a virtual blackout of the story in the United States, except for a few top Internet sites like Newsmax.com.
In executing this grand deception of collapse, the Russian communist hierarchy in the old Soviet Union divided among themselves private ownership of the most lucrative of the state industries so that they could continue living the lavish lifestyles they were accustomed to as Russia’s “nomenclatura” (privileged elite) in the Soviet era. Berezovsky got large chunks of the Russian oil and gas industry. I believe there is a fairly direct correlation between the identity of those who got ownership or control of the biggest chunks of Soviet industry and those who had the most power in the real Soviet power structure. Thus, Berezovsky is my top suspect for de facto current ruler of Russia. His position in Russia and in the Soviet-backed conspiracy for world power would be analogous to that of David Rockefeller and his role in the American/British combination for world power, known as the New World Order.
If Berezovsky is at the top of the secret Russian power structure, it would also mean he is the behind-the-scenes controller of the Socialist International as well--a cadre of socialist leaders in Europe that are secret allies of Moscow in working toward a united Europe under Russian leadership. Willy Brandt (Germany) and Francois Mitterand (France) were two of these notorious secret Communists who rose to top leadership in post-war Europe. Now nearly every major governmental head in the European Union is a member of the Socialist International, notably the current prime ministers of Italy, France, Germany, Norway, Finland and Britain. Berezovsky maintains private, high security residences in all the major power centers of Europe where he directs this extensive network of control. While Berezovsky rarely meets with heads of states directly, he has a group of second-level insiders in Europe that interact constantly with EU leaders. Putin is one of those second-level facilitators who has now been tapped to play a leading, public role.
After his ascension to power as acting president, Putin attacked the so-called Russian Oligarchs (including Berezovsky), accusing them of being the force behind the corruption in Moscow politics. Of course, Putin’s position is now known to be totally hypocritical. One of his first acts as President was to grant immunity to the former Yeltsin regime for their part in the corruption scandals, thus protecting his fellow conspirators. Because of the revelations on Putin’s secret liaisons with Berezovsky in Spain, we have evidence of Putin’s active collaboration with this kingmaker. One of the La Razon sources in the Security Ministry said the transcripts of the conversation between Putin and Berezovsky centered around the need to remove Yeltsin and replace him with Putin. It follows then that Putin’s attacks on Berezovsky are merely a front to maintain the illusion that Berezovski is an “enemy” while Putin is the “tought reformer” and that democracy and independence in Russian politics is alive and well.
It is also interesting to note that Putin’s secret visits to Spain using Gibralter as his cover could not have been carried out without the complicity of the British Labor government. Thus, we have more evidence of Western governments covering for this grand deception and Russian intrigue.
OPPOSITION MEDIA OLIGARCH ARRESTED IN MOSCOW.
Also, on June 13, the Office of the Prosecutor General in Moscow arrested Vladimir Guzinsky, one of the Russian media oligarchs whose private media companies have been vocal in their criticism of Putin’s Chechnya policy. Strangely, the Clinton administration, which normally bends over backwards to support President Putin pulled out all the stops to protest the Guzinsky arrest. White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart tells reporters, “we are quite concerned about some of the steps that have been taken against the free media.” Even Clinton weighed in for Guzinsky saying, “I don't believe people should be arrested solely because of what they say in exercising their role as members of the press." The Washington Post also came out attacking the arrest, pretending to be shocked: “The most recent defining act of Russia's new president, Vladimir Putin, is more Soviet than democratic....In an apparent effort to intimidate the press, Mr. Putin has engaged in police-state tactics so crude that even his severest critics seem stunned." Lastly, die-hard, pro-Soviet Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot claims to be appalled: “It has a look and feel to it that does not resonate rule of law. It resonates muscle; it resonates power; it resonates intimidation.”
ANALYSIS: Nothing in Russia is what it appears on the surface. First, Guzinsky didn’t get to his position as a media oligarch by free market means. He’s part of the same Old Guard Communist hierarchy that was allowed to build an instant opposition media position to help promote the illusion of a free press in Russia. The Clinton administration’s pretensions of outrage at Russian heavy-handedness in dealing with Guzinsky are merely a front to sustain this illusion. Notice how many times they mention the big lie about a “free press.” Yet, for those who watched the virtual non-stop pro-Putin propaganda from the Kremlin-controlled media in Moscow, it is clear that Guzinsky’s opposition media was merely a token presence.
I think this is a show trial either to keep the real emerging media opposition hunkered down and less vocal or because Guzinsky was one of those insiders who got a little too “big for his ego” and had to be put in his place. There is one other possibility as well. Guzinsky is Jewish and there are signs of another Jewish purge emerging in Russia as part of its preparations for the upcoming war with the West. In either case, we cannot trust any pronouncement from the Clinton administration on the issue to be genuine, especially those of Strobe Talbot--the reigning apologist for Russian affairs.
Keep in mind that, although we may not know all of the motives of the Clinton administration or those of their media allies, when they engage in a concerted public effort to support some person or cause, you can be sure that cause is serving their larger overall agenda to undermine liberty--no matter what the appearances to the contrary may be.
In contrast to this focus on Guzinsky, at no time did the State Department or Clinton go to bat for American businessman and consultant Ed Pope who is accused of spying and is now languishing in the KGB/FSB’s Lefortovo Prison. Pope's family told Mike Waller of the American Foreign Policy Council that the State Department has issued no statement of any kind, and has not protested the matter with the Russian government. The family was falsely led to believe that President Clinton would discuss
JULY 7, 2000
THE DEFEAT OF MEXICO’S ONE-PARTY STATE--BUT NOTHING WILL CHANGE
On July 4th Mexican voters rejected the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI), which had ruled Mexico as a de-facto one-party state for 71 years. The National Action Party (PAN) candidate, Vicente Fox, won the popular vote for president over the PRI candidate, Francisco Labastida. The leftist populist candidate Cuauhtemoc Cardenas finished third. The election had far reaching effects beyond the presidential race. The PRI also lost its majority in the Mexican national legislature, and lost many regional governorships and local offices as well. It used to control all elected offices at all levels.
The PRI maintained power for so many years by a variety of well-worn socialist methods. They bought the votes of the common man by promising ever-increasing social benefits for a poverty stricken majority. They provided cheap materials for rudimentary housing as well. Interestingly enough, Mexico was smart enough not to start down the European and US path of direct cash payments to the poor. They knew this would be a recipe for budgetary disaster. Population numbers for the peasant class are so high that the treasury would be quickly bankrupted in a cash payment system. So, traditionally, the Mexican government has engaged in large scale subsidies for basic foods--making beans and rice dirt cheap for the peasants. In Mexico, you don’t starve, but the high carbohydrate diet is less than ideal for good nutrition.
Even with limited welfare benefits, the Mexican coffers were never adequate to cover the inevitable rise in benefit demands. To increase cash flow, without raising taxes, the PRI nationalized the petroleum industry not too long after private US firms located and began developing Mexico’s offshore oil reserves.
Once a massive socialist bureaucracy was entrenched, controlling every aspect of the Mexican economy, the PRI’s primary lever of power became its control over who got these lucrative federal and state jobs. Not only was the pay guaranteed, but many of these jobs put people in a position to exact bribes and pay-offs. Official corruption has developed into a way of life for such a large percentage of government and police officials that it tends to be self-perpetuating. In essence, the PRI was the only power game in town and if you wanted to rise, you didn’t dare cross the PRI--or the labor unions which were an arm of the PRI.
In the last 20 years, the PRI has had to augment its “income” from taxes and oil by adding drugs to the list. The “war on drugs” is as much an official fraud in Mexico as it is in the US. The Mexican drug trade has developed a well oiled relationship with the dark side of the US government (CIA, DEA, INS) in order to maintain a steady flow of drugs into the US--filling the secret coffers of both government. Border Patrol agents all know about the sealed trucks that are allowed to regularly pass through the Mexican/US border without inspection. INS agents who have attempted to blow the whistle on this illegal traffic in drugs have found that higher authority in the INS not only knows about it, but is unwilling to stop it. Inevitably the whistleblower himself, if he persists, is set up for an illegal act so that he can be silenced or prosecuted.
ANALYSIS: While the US liberal establishment press is lauding Mexico for returning to two-party democracy, I’m convinced this is a carefully crafted change where the same powers now control both parties in Mexico instead of only one. The weakening of the PRI by international global insiders began many years ago. Their target was the PRI “old guard” politicians (refered to in Mexico as the “dinosaurs”) who were a little too corrupt and independent even for the international power brokers. In the 60s and 70s, major leftist US foundations began sponsoring a number of Mexican students to study at Harvard and other Ivy League American schools. They were looking to develop future insiders who could rise within the ranks of the PRI and control it for global purposes. Most of these US trained economists and MBA graduates went to work within the PRI and formed a cadre of “technocrats” who quickly rose to advisory positions of power within the PRI. The old guard leaders tolerated them because they needed their US-connected expertise to deal with an increasingly sophisticated world. The past 3 Mexican presidents have all been closely allied with the NWO global organizations and have used their power within the PRI to ensure high party positions for these technocrats. In the past, the current president in Mexico is always the head of the PRI as well, and has been able to dictate who gets high party posts.
The US educated technocrats were primarily responsible for crafting support for NAFTA in Mexico. This required undermining slowly the PRI’s control over the economy and freeing up manufacturing sectors, especially along the US border, so as to attract US investment and jobs. The technocrats appeared to purposefully undermine the PRI’s traditional power base among the peasants. They privatized state-owned industries and weakened the union’s power which appeared to hurt low-income union employees. All of these are good semi-free market reforms, but they helped set the stage for the PRI’s defeat. The technocrats engineered seven currency devaluations since 1976, wiping out the personal savings of many middle class Mexicans. Others who had switched to dollar accounts saw those accounts confiscated by the government in the 1980s and replaced with Mexican bonds. In essence, this faction of the PRI reformed itself right out of power--on purpose, I believe.
The current president, Ernesto Zedillo (PRI), did make one crucial change prior to this election to ensure that opponent Fox would have a fair chance to win. I doubt that Zedillo’s motivation was to be charitable. He created an impartial electoral tribunal that forced this year's PRI candidate, Francisco Labastida Ochoa, to not rely on the traditional corruption of the voting process. As an example, in the 1988 election, the PRI Minister of Interior is suspected of faking the crash of ballot computers in order to ensure his boss Carlos Salinas won the election.
Last, the PRI made another crucial mistake they have never made before. They selected a candidate who was a technocrat, without any charisma or speaking ability. It’s like they were throwing the election. Lack of charisma in Mexican politics is suicide at the polls. The 58 year old Vicente Fox, on the other hand is handsome, virile, wealthy and an engaging speaker. He is the son of a wealthy Guanajuato farmer/rancher, and was one of those promising young Mexicans picked to study business administration at Harvard. He came back and worked his way up the ranks in the Coca-Cola Co, finally becoming its president for all of Mexico and Central America. Coca-Cola is a very big internationalist corporation and is closely tied to the globalist insiders. Nobody rises to the top of Coca-Cola unless they buy into the principles of the global power structure that Coca-Cola has used to its advantage over the years.
Fox joined the PAN party early on and was elected to the national legislature, and then to governor of the state of Guanajuato in 1995. He then started running for president 3 years ago. If you analyze his campaign, it is clear there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference between him and the PRI’s Lambastida. The main issue was political corruption of the PRI. Corruption in government was synonymous with the PRI, so it was a “Fox versus the PRI” campaign, plain and simple. Fox advanced all the same socialist promises that the PRI uses. Look at his platform and promises. You will also see his globalist perspective.
· THE ECONOMY: Like Clinton he promised both fiscal responsibility (7 percent annual growth by the second half of his six-year term, elimination of the budget deficit, reduction of inflation to about 3 percent from the current 10 percent) and increased government benefits. He’s betting on growth and fudged statistics to obscure the contradictions, just like the US.
· TAXES: He promised to ferret out black market employment (the true free market) and tax it out of existence. Naturally he will promise income tax exemptions of up to 10 years for new ventures in poor regions to buy votes of big business.
· AGRICULTURE: He promised to maintain or increase every agricultural subsidy in use.
· OIL/GAS: He made loud and repeated promises NOT to privatize state oil monopoly PEMEX but said he will streamline and modernize the giant industry and raise wages.
· SOCIAL PROGRAMS: He promised to double education funding, and guarantee that all Mexicans have access to education. He also pledged not to kill or reduce any social programs even though he promised to eliminate deficit spending by 2004. Sounds just like Clinton
· NAFTA: This is the big one on his list, which is telling. He wants to expand NAFTA to include a long term system of change whereby wage differences between the US, Mexico and Canada are gradually eliminated so there can be unlimited work exchange within all the Americas, much like the EU. This is his solution to the immigration conflict. The US and the EU both have the disadvantage of having an aging work force headed for retirement. Expanding legal immigration is what these governments are proposing in order to fill the void and bring down wages. These shifts will be very painful to sectors of the old economies scheduled for displacement.
The media labels Fox as a center-right leader, but that’s hogwash. He’s a NWO globalist and socialist who believes in using the lure of free markets to facilitate international power. The insiders’ long-term agenda in Mexico is only partially beneficial. They will reign in the official levels of police corruption, drug trafficking and violent crime--all products of one-party excess. But in their place we will see a more sophisticated system of deception and corruption mirroring the US and Europe.
JULY 14, 2000
BRITISH BUSINESSMEN TOLD, “The Euro is coming, like it or not.”
A group of British business leaders were invited to meet with a Member of Parliament (MP) this week and were told that Britain is going to switch from the pound to the Euro, whether the people want it or not--so they had better get used to it and start purchasing the necessary accounting software and hardware to handle the change. Changing all cash registers and accounting systems in Britain will be very costly.
ANALYSIS: This is typical of the high-handed way in which government treats its citizens. This meeting was assuredly “off the record” --part of the mystique of impressing the attendees that they were initiates into some inner circle of confidants with government. It’s sad how people can be corrupted by the idea that they are “in the know.” They are so proud of the fact that they have become “insiders” with “access” to government that they can’t see they are being used to help condition other business people into accepting that which would otherwise be politically impossible. At least one of them had the courage to speak up privately, and his statements were passed along to me by a mutual friend. Increasingly, nations are filled with businessmen who have no allegiance to any principles of national sovereignty or economic rights. They are only interested in surviving and since big government is the main force to be reckoned with, that translates into willing submission. Part of this changing attitude is due to the fact that most CEO’s are hired managers and not true entrepreneurs. They don’t have a real stake in the free market, only a high priced job that requires fealty to high authority and making money as the only criteria for success.
JULY 20, 2000
MIDDLE EAST “PEACE” TALKS--A ONE-WAY STREET TO WAR
Like any other US brokered “peace” agreement, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are a one-way street that is meant to lead to war, in reaction to which the international community intends to impose a globalist solution. The pro-western side (in this case, Israel) is expected to do all the compromising, until it becomes vulnerable to attack. Like every other predator nation (Russia, China, North Korea, etc.) the Arabs will eventually attack. It’s only a matter of time. If the Palestinians agree to any compromise in the interim period before they strike Israel, it is only so as to give the appearance of conciliation. There will be no expectations for fulfillment on their part by the international community and no sanctions imposed for violating or hedging on agreements. Only Israel will be hounded for compliance until every last parcel of territory won in previous wars is returned to the Palestinians. That is, in fact, the globalists’ blueprint for Israel as outlined in the CFR’s July, 1996 Task Force report on Israel. But the CFR isn’t pro-Arab because they love the Arabs. They intend to use them as cannon fodder in the next war--a war where Israel will be weakened sufficiently to feel compelled to call upon the UN to save them from destruction. At least that’s what the NWO boys are counting on.
BACKGROUND: The UN architects originally intended to control Jerusalem permanently as an international city. This was part of the deal they brokered with Zionist Jews prior to the 1948 declaration carving out the State of Israel from the British Mandate over Palestine. The Zionists didn’t really want the deal but agreed to the UN mandate in order to get a foothold on the world stage as a sovereign nation. It was a risk worth taking. When the Arabs refused to abide by the partition of Palestine and attempted to crush the new state, Israel turned defeat into victory, and won absolute control over an even larger share of Palestine and in the process eliminated any Kosovo-style international solution. The globalists have been determined ever since to force Israel back into a dependent relationship, but with each consecutive war engineered by arming radical Arab states, Israel has ended up with even more land and more control.
Up until the early 1980’s Israel held to a no-compromise, Israel-first, no-tolerance-for-terrorism policy that resulted in increasing strength and stability. During those 30 years, Israel grew in power and was finally in a position to wean itself from US foreign aid which had lots of nasty strings attached. The break from US dependence never came, and worse, the globalist insiders were able to convert and corrupt enough of the high leadership in Israel so that from the 1980’s till the present, Israel’s own leaders have taken over the betrayal process from within. Not only have leaders of the major political parties (Labor, Likud, Shas) been corrupted by millions of dollars paid into their political campaigns by foreign sources, but there has been a full range of moral and ethical corruption as well, making them subject to blackmail from above.
Almost as if tutored by the dark side of the US government, establishment insiders in Israel slowly gained control in all the major media in Israel. Today most newspapers, radio and television stations are owned by 3 major families--all parroting the establishment line. Also, like the US, they have selectively gutted the military of hard-line officers and allowed compromising, incompetent yes-men (like Ehud Barak) to rise in rank, using the military as a springboard to political office. The Israeli version of our CIA, the Mossad, has become as corrupt as our own spy agency by joining forces with the dark side of the US government in running drugs and acting as international hit men for jobs the CIA doesn’t want to touch. The Israeli secret service, the Shabak, has its dark side too, and pulled off the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, putting the blame upon a government agent who was set up to appear as a right-wing extremist (shades of the JFK and Martin Luther King planned assassinations). Top Israeli leaders like Shimon Perez have systematically replaced prosecutors and judges in Israel with lawyers who will cover for any official indiscretions and crimes that leak out.
Thanks to investigative journalist Barry Chamish (a Canadian born Jew who immigrated to Israel in his early 20’s), the government has lots more sensitive revelations to deny and cover-up. Chamish was the first to break the story about how the Shabak killed Rabin inside his own limousine after the public attempt on his life by Yidal Amir (who was actually firing blanks in what was supposed to be a “training event” staged by the Shabak as a cover). Amir was then betrayed by the agency and set up to take the blame. Chamish’s book, “Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin” has gone from an underground banned book to best seller status in Israel and has helped polarize the Israel people. In response, the government has made two attempts on Chamish’s life. They also have intercepted and cut off his telephone interviews with US radio stations and put pressure on book distributors not to carry his books. The US media has joined in the collusion by placing a blackout on Chamish’s dramatic accusations.
Why did the Powers That Be kill Rabin? First, he was pushed too far by his globalist controllers into ever increasing sellouts of Israel. Finally, he was overheard telling them (in very offensive language) that he had had enough and wanted out. As Chamish says, “that signed his death warrant.” But instead of letting him retire, Shimon Perez and his European French cohorts decided to engineer a Kennedy-style assassination, having seen in America what a tremendous effect a martyr produces in squelching the opposition voices. If the killer can be made out to be a right-wing fanatic, the propaganda effect is tripled. Rabin had become the very symbol of the vaunted “peace process” and his murder made it almost impossible for the opposition to criticize the ongoing betrayal of Israel. Chamish stays very public nowadays and publishes every new revelation he finds as fast as he can so as to make it difficult for the government to silence him--the political reverberations would be too obvious and hard to explain away with a public figure. Chamish is also one of the very few Israelis who understands the role of the NWO globalists in Israeli politics. His book, “Traitors and Carpetbaggers in the Promised Land” is a fascinating expose of foreign influence in Israel. Chamish’s books are available through Amazon.com.
Thanks to a plethora of leaks coming mostly from the Arab side, Chamish has been able to piece together the dramatic revelation that Israel’s own leaders, during and since the Oslo accords (1993-94), have met secretly with the PLO on numerous occasions (under NWO guidance by Henry Kissinger and others) and agreed to yield up most of Israel’s conquered territories, including the strategic Golan Heights. They have even agreed to a three-way partition of Jerusalem (Catholic, Arab and Jewish sectors) under UN control despite a continual flow of denials to that effect by Israeli officials.
All that remains is to manipulate public opinion in Israel so that they will be willing to accept these capitulations. This takes years, even though Israel is going through a rapid moral decline, paralleling the West, including a dramatic loss of the will to fight. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders continue to promise their people that they will never compromise on the very issues they have already agreed to give away. As in Clinton’s case, every statement by the Israeli government is an outright or partial lie. Every public pronouncement about the deliberations at Camp David are also half-truths or lies. The bulk of the negotiations concern how much to publicly reveal so as to preserve each side’s presumed position and to protect them from political repercussions. Barak’s political future is already likened to that of a Kamikaze pilot, sacrificing himself for the cause of peace. He is seen as hell-bent on unilateral capitulation in spite of the wall of resistance against the “rush to settlement” that is increasingly unpopular in Israel.
But the Israelis are sadly naive about the power and role of the globalist controllers who are running the show. These insiders have the power to see that Barak and Arafat are awarded a Noble Peace prize. They have the power to even grace Bill Clinton with this dubious honor. The international community can make the Israeli parliament look like bigots and radicals if they dare to challenge the makers of this “glorious peace.” When Barak and Arafat staged an end to the negotiations and were brought back to the table again, as Clinton left for Japan, I realized the world was going to get an agreement, like it or not.
Let me explain why these secret agreements are not only impossible to implement, but will ultimately lead to war. Here are the intractable issues.
SETTLEMENTS: All of the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, are covered with hundreds of new housing developments built by Israelis with American loans and loan guarantees. All of these settlers would be at risk living under a Palestinian or Syrian authority. If they leave their homes, Israel has no place or means to house them. If they stay they will die either piecemeal or en masse in a war. This amounts to the equivalent of future death camps.
WATER: Israel has turned the Jordan valley and the southern desert into huge tracts of productive agriculture through the taking of almost all water rights (except for a small share left to Jordan and the Palestinians). Even with massive water diversion projects on the Jordan river, Israel is still pumping more water out of the underground aquifers than is being replaced by nature. If you pump too much water from fresh water aquifers, salt water from the nearby Mediterranean slowly invades the aquifer making the water unusable. When Israel gives up the Jordan Valley, she will lose a majority of her agriculture and 40% of her ground water rights. When the Golan goes back to Syria, Israel will lose a good portion of the Jordan River water as well. Israel will no longer be self-sufficient for water which is a recipe for blackmail. Desalinization plants, at a cost to US taxpayers of $10-20 billion would still not be enough. The operating costs are too high for agricultural use.
REFUGEES: There are millions of Palestinian refugees holed up in hostile camps surrounding Israel, waiting to return. If Israel lets them return, it will take billions in aid to build housing for them. Once they return, Israel will be outnumbered politically. In a raw democracy this is political suicide.
PALESTINIAN STATE: Arafat wants statehood so he can openly create an armed force and supply it with help from his benefactors in Russia. Israel has secretly agreed to this, which is military suicide.
GOLAN HEIGHTS: These massive hills overlooking the Jordan Valley were used in the past by the Syrians to shell Israeli settlements day and night. Give it up, and the Jordan Valley becomes indefensible.
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS: Numerous high security bases would have to be moved and rebuilt after the shift in boundaries. The former installations will go to the Palestinians. Not only is this costly, but strategic position cannot be regained by rebuilding a base in a less strategic area.
COST: Implementation of the secret accords will cost almost $100 billion over 10-15 years. Clinton is telling Congress it will only cost the US $10-15 billion. The media will vilify any Congressman who dares undermine this “historic agreement” over a few billion in aid from the “richest country in the world.” Actually, the money is never meant to be raised or fully paid out to the Palestinians. Fulmillment will be postponed causing bitter feelings among the Arabs over “broken promises.”
JERUSALEM: This city is coveted by Catholics, Jews, Arabs and even Freemasons (who claim to have built Solomon’s temple). If it is divided, it wil become a maze of check points, bridges and tunnels connecting all its disparate parts into its corresponding political sectors. Each sector would become an armed camp eventually guaranteeing urban warfare and destruction of the honored sanctuaries.
THE SOLUTION: The reason there will be war, no matter what the outcome of the peace process, is because both Arab leaders and NWO globalists want war. The Arab leaders are fanatical in their hatred of Israel (part of which is justified). Under Israeli occupation both Arabs and Jews have had to suffer under oppressive Israeli socialism and excessive control measures. On the other side, the NWO globalists are fanatical in their hatred of liberty and national sovereignty. They keep arming and training Arab terrorists (or looking the other way while Russia imports arms via surrogate nations) to provoke Israel. Terrorism is turned off and on like a spigot in order to punish resistance to the peace process or reward compromise. Right now, top Israeli leaders work for the NWO and the Israeli people don’t have a clue what’s going on. The majority of Arabs are good, peace-loving people, as are the majority of Israelis--though both want too much from government. As in Kosovo, raw democracy never works since one ethnic majority, when in power, will oppress the other. The only true solution is a US-style Constitution limiting democracy and majority rule so that no group can oppress another. But, alas, those same legal restrictions prohibit socialism, and benefit-corrupted people can’t imagine living without the power to require all taxpayers to subsidize their wants. As long as each group desires sovereignty over the other, exclusively for the purpose of oppression and delivery of benefits, the inevitable result will be war and conflict.
JULY 27, 2000
WITH A NEW TRADE PACT SECURED, CHINA DUMPS ANY PRETEXT OF REFORM
The ink hasn’t even dried on China’s trade victory in the US Congress (thanks to naive Republicans) as China reverts to its normal ruthless behavior. This month uniformed and non-uniformed Chinese police were thick as fleas in Tiananmen square laying in wait for pro-democracy demonstrators. Police swiftly broke up scattered protests on Thursday morning, by the Falun Gong religious group. Over 60 persons were beaten and dragged into waiting vans where more beatings took place. This latest flare up of demonstrations indicates that despite this year’s purges and crackdowns, the opposition is sparse but still not without courage.
ANALYSIS: Meanwhile the Clinton administration continues aid and trade as usual with not a hint of sanctions. The Clinton cadre has even begun a movement to undermine the growing Chinese opposition in America, according to Carl Limbacher of NewsMax.com (my preferred Internet news site). While playing up publicly to the plight of Chinese dissidents like Harry Wu (released from a Chinese prison in 1995) by supporting legislation to fund a China Democracy Project, the Clinton administration worked behind the scenes to make sure the promised funding never arrived to help Wu and his group. The $900,000 legacy was to be administered by the RFK foundation, but its newly appointed director recently decided that Harry Wu and his group did not qualify. The new director at the RFK foundation was none other than Greg Craig. You remember Craig--he defended Reagan would-be-assassin John Hinkley, and was Clinton’s impeachment lawyer. He was also the establishment hack who “volunteered” his services to engineer the taking of little Elian Gonzalez from his relatives and deliver him back to Cuba. Wherever Greg Craig shows up, you can bet there’s a “special ops” project going on.
AUGUST 26, 2000
THE SEPTEMBER MILLENNIUM GLOBAL SUMMIT CONFERENCE IN NY
During this crucial time, anyone who values American Constitutional sovereignty should become a close observer of the NWO battleground forming in New York at UN headquarters starting September 6th. I will be out of the country during this period, but will comment on it when I return. Thus, during the period when these crucial negotiations are going on (over your sovereign rights) I’m going to send you to a website that will help you track the issues. Go to Tom DeWeese’s American Policy Center website: http://www.americanpolicy.org/ and check it daily for updated info during this period. You can also find there all the background information on the current proposals.
What you won’t find on any website is my analysis on the crucial struggle that will take place behind closed doors. Most conservatives think that everyone attending will all be working toward a unified sellout of national sovereignty. This is true only in part. It won’t be the key struggle, however. While all the participants will be in favor of the erosion of sovereign nationalities, the real issue will be who will control the New World Order as it becomes fully empowered. Anyone who thinks that democracy will rule in the NWO or is very naive. I doubt that these hotly contested power struggles are going to be made public. We will only be able to tell who wins based upon what kinds of new structural changes come out from the summit--or, more likely, by what changes don’t happen.
As my veteran subscribers know, it is my opinion that the NWO is split into two major factions: the European faction, closely aligned with Moscow via the Socialist International (an old Communist/socialist front) and the US/UK faction (an alliance of the US moneyed powers with the Conservative Tories in the UK. Both are one-world socialists, but the US/UK faction controls all the financial and military levers of power--World Bank, IMF, BIS etc. The European faction controls the UN--which presently has no power except as the US/UK faction allows, owing to the veto powers they possess in the Security Council. That’s why the issue of veto powers is up for negotiations in this summit, as well as forming a world army and ratifying a host of dangerous treaties that are languishing in the legislatures of reluctant sovereign nations.
I expect them to agree on all the issues except those that involve a change in power--control of the world monetary institutions, and the Security Council veto. The veto will go only when the US/UK powers that be have invented other internal ways of keeping the rag-tag mob of 160 nations from redistributing all the wealth of the world for their benefit. Even the NWO couldn’t survive a full and uncontrolled dose of raw democracy and raw socialist takings. US socialists still want Fabian-type socialism that maintains the illusion of private property and keeps people working. This, in turn, keeps feeding the social programs that keep the socialists in power.
As Chuck Baldwin recently put it in his essay Ignoring the Greatest Threat, “With either a Gore or Bush administration, one thing will not change: America's continued march toward a global, New World Order. Both Bush and Gore are greatly influenced (even manipulated) by international interests. That is why both Bush and Gore support permanent MFN for Communist China, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Both men primarily serve the interests of international conglomerates. Therefore, the journey toward globalism will continue no matter which man wins the White House this November.”
SEPTEMBER 1, 2000
THE PANAMA ENIGMA
There is more to the Panama Canal giveaway than mere pandering to Latin American national interests. Panama has been the strategic center of US military operations in Central America for decades. Even though the canal itself had outgrown much of its military utility due to limited size (carrier task forces can’t get through any more), Panama was bristling with a dozen large and small American military bases and outposts. Almost all military and embassy air operations to and from Latin America passed through Panama for logistical support. Those support facilities are now gone--given away in a scandal ridden fire-sale that unloaded billions of dollars of US facilities and equipment to both Panama and the underground black market in arms.
To understand the picture I’m painting, you have to understand that Panama served both as an above-ground base for legitimate US Southern Command military forces, as well as a base for illegitimate operations (also run through Southern Command) involving secret CIA/DEA drug importation operations out of Colombia. A few defectors from both the military and the CIA have amply confirmed how US secret air interdiction operations between Colombia and the US were selective--taking down flights from cartels not controlled by the US and providing secret radio beacon flight paths to facilitate “authorized flights.” The dark side of the US government will expend unlimited amounts of money and power to keep this a secret, for “drug ops” provide a large portion of the secret funds for black (illegal) operations.
So why does the US government twist arms and resist all logic to give up not only the canal, but the entire secret base of operations in Panama? Believe me, it has been costly. The US-Colombian drug air pipeline is still in operation, but has had to move to leased facilities in other Caribbean island nations as well as to El Salvador’s Ilopango air base (which had been a secondary base in the former system). Not only do new facilities have to be built, but different politicians have to be bought off to not expose illicit US operations.
What is interesting to note is that China is moving in to fill the entire void left in Panama by the Americans. They have continued to corruption of national officials. Panamanian president Mireya Moscoso is a NWO leftist who is actively collaborating with the Chinese in their bid to turn Panama into an illegal immigration springboard to the West. In an investigation conducted by honest Panamanian officials, surveillance cameras at Tucuman International Airport documented Panamanian officials allowing Chinese immigrants to pass without any immigration papers. Money was passed to some immigration officials but others acted without bribes indicating they had the go ahead from higher officials. While bribing is not uncommon in Panamanian internal affairs, this form (at immigration booths) was both unique to Moscoso’s administration and was shown to be systematic (as opposed to a few rogue agents). As further evidence of official sanction for these illegal entrants, President Moscoso had the whistleblowers in the investigation fired when they would not cease to expose the Chinese operations. Chinese immigrants stay in Panama for several months and then move on to various US and British islands in the Caribbean to attempt entrance into the US. The numbers of illegal Chinese entrants in the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico is up some 5 fold in the past 5 years.
In the drug sector, companies with secret links to China’s military have taken over a good portion of the abandoned US military facilities, warehouses and equipment. They are still negotiating with Panama for more. Money seems to be flowing generously to both parliamentary and government leaders in Panama. China is using Panama now in the same manner as the US did in the past--building up the infrastructure for future military presence and a drug pipeline system targeting the US. The Chinese are using Panamanian banks for money laundering (just as the US did) and they are using some rural air and sea bases for drug importation from China. It is impossible to believe that the US drug surveillance presence in the region (designed to control all competitors) would not be aware of these activities. I’m convinced that the US is not only aware, but covering for the Chinese inroads into this market. Since the US is the biggest player in the international black market for drugs, they would not knowingly allow China to intrude were China not viewed as some form of strategic partner in a long-term future war scenario. In short, that’s what I think is the real motive for the abandonment of Panama--to facilitate a Chinese entrance into the Americas.
As additional evidence, note the recent insistence of the Clinton administration to renew military briefings of top Chinese military officers at US university think tanks that help develop US military doctrine. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, perhaps the best US military reporter, broke the story of this latest Clinton sellout of national security. Twenty-five senior Chinese military offers recently spent two weeks at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government where they received top level briefings from US military officers. The subject: US military tactics and strategy relative to Taiwan and China. Critics correctly note that these briefings will help China develop counter strategies in any conflict over Taiwan. However, It’s not quite that simple.
I continue to make the case that this collaboration is too blatant to indicate a competitive relationship. Even though I firmly believe China eventually intends to attack the West (the Chinese openly proclaim it in military circles) I believe these actions are indicative of a secret pact between China and the US globalists. China will get military aid and technology transfers in exchange for betraying Russia when Russia begins WWIII, so that the West can eventually win and establish their vaunted NWO. China, of course, intends to use this pact to be able to defeat its fellow Communist competitor (Russia) for world domination and then turn on the West after China becomes strong through Western aid and trade. The West probably knows this as well, but the NWO will have need of another “cold war” enemy after WWIII to justify keeping a powerful UN army in action. This will also provide them with an excuse to resist any tendency to return to individual national sovereignty--the Chinese threat will be too great to handle except by a “unified global defense.”
SEPT 8, 2000
CIA COVER-UP OF PAN AM 103 EXPLOSION
On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a bomb that detonated in the baggage compartment as the plane made its climb out from London passing over Lockerbie, Scotland en route to New York. A total of 270 people died including 11 residents of the Scottish town. According to investigators, the bomb was built into a Toshiba radio cassette player and packed in a brown hard-case Samsonite suitcase that was being unlawfully shipped as unaccompanied baggage. This would later prove to be questionable or planted evidence.
Unraveling this case has been very difficult due to the shadowy players involved who might have had terrorist motives. Libyan Dictator Col. Gadafy may have been trying to avenge a US air strike against him in 1986. Iran may have been seeking to avenge the shoot-down of Iran-Air Flight 655 by the US cruiser Vincennes in July of 1988. Our own CIA was also deeply involved in drug operations in the Middle East (drug operations are one of the CIA’s main sources of income for black operations in order to avoid budgetary explanations to Congress) as well as trading weapons with Syrian, Palestinian, Libyan, and German terrorists to assist in getting hostages released--something the US claims they never do.
The CIA’s involvement in this tragedy is particularly prominent. They had regular dealings with all the terrorist nations and groups now suspected of the bombing--including Libya. In the Iran-Contra affair the CIA supplied Syrian and Palestinian terrorists with arms in exchange for drugs. Similarly, while still claiming that Libya was a terrorist nation, the CIA regularly supplied Gadafy with weapons and explosives. When one of its “cut-outs” (an agent being paid through a secret third-party) was arrested for shipping explosives to Libya, the CIA used the standard procedure of simply denying he ever worked for them. I believe the quid-pro-quo with Libya was that Gadafy agreed to keep his terrorists in check. The US government wants America reserved for “domestic” terrorism so it can portray the right-wing elements as radical enemies.
Just as the CIA can easily have one of their own agents arrested (when the agent gets queasy about all the illegal activities) simply by tipping off the authorities to an illegal act the CIA assigns an agent to do, they can easily frame any number of cooperating terrorist/drug dealers for acts the CIA itself pays them to perform. When the CIA has multiple operations going on and is regularly transporting drugs and weapons via civilian airliners, it is easy to finger any number of their partners involved in these transports to take the blame for the CIA’s own purposeful sabotage. This appears to be what they did in the current attempt to prosecute the two Libyans Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah. These two men have a long history of involvement in black operations, and were most likely involved in some type of drug transshipment known to the CIA. So it was a simple matter to write them into the script of Pan Am 103 and say they shipped a bomb rather than drugs.
HERE IS THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT SCENARIO:
Within days of the 1988 shootdown of Iran-Air 655 in the Persian Gulf, the fundamentalist regime in Tehran gave orders to its surrogates in Syria--led by the renowned terrorist Ahmed Jibril of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)--to plan an attack on a US airliner. Jibril’s chief bomb-maker, Marwan Khrecat traveled to Germany and built five bombs into Toshiba portable cassette-radios designed to detonate at altitude, Jibril’s preferred method of operations (MO). However, in October Khrecat was arrested by German security police who had been tracking his movements. Conveniently for this version, the police reportedly confiscated one of Khrecat’s Toshiba radio bombs. Supposedly this is how the CIA is certain the Pan Am bomb was in a Toshiba radio. The CIA claims that Jibril then went to Col. Gadafy in the fall for help to carry out the plot--which is hardly plausible since Jibril still reportedly had other bombs made by Khrecat and other terrorist assets available to him in Europe. It is then claimed that Gadafy tasked two Libyan agents working undercover for Libyan Arab Air in Malta to assemble another Toshiba radio bomb (activated by time delay) and tag it as unaccompanied baggage to Frankfurt with a final destination of New York. One of the Libyans supposedly left a diary behind to be discovered where he mentioned his intent to tag the luggage (highly unlikely for a trained terrorist who had the expertise to build a sophisticated bomb). At Frankfurt it is alleged that Jibril’s agents were able to smuggle the suitcase past Pan Am security, still unaccompanied, on the first leg of Pan AM Flight 103 to Heathrow (London) where it continued on to New York.
This was the official version in 1991, but it was full of holes. Since it was against regulations for such unaccompanied baggage to be allowed on Pan Am, the probability of the suitcase getting through two separate security checks was slim. Obviously they couldn’t have used an altitude triggering device so it is presumed that they used a timer. Conveniently the CIA claims to know the type and manufacturer of the timer by a fragment of a circuit board found a year after the crash in the pocket of a piece of clothing (if you can believe that). The CIA was making furtive contacts with this same Swiss timer company 8 days after the crash, so the claim tying this Swiss timer to forensic evidence found a year later is suspicious. Of course, the Swiss company sold several to the Libyans, but they also sold hundreds to others as well which have turned up in terrorist arsenals. The whole timer theory is suspect because of the difficulty in estimating where the suitcase was going to be when it went off.
Enter version #2:
Now the CIA claims that the Libyans still planned the attack and built the bomb but got Jibril to induce a Lebanese-American named Khalid Jafaar to check the suitcase onboard, telling him it was a heroin shipment. The young Jafaar was part of a major Syrian drug dynasty operating out of the Bekaa valley and was accustomed to such assignments. In Jafaar’s mind, getting the heroin into the US was no problem since the CIA had Mafia contacts throughout the Kennedy Airport system that could divert the baggage around customs inspectors. Jafaar, according to Lester Coleman, ex-CIA/DEA whistleblower and author of “Trail of the Octopus,” was also working for the CIA. While stationed in the DEA Cypress office, he had seen Jafaar there, so he knew he was a CIA asset. When Coleman challenged the official version in his book, he found himself under indictment for a passport violation (using an alias assigned him by the CIA) and had to flee the country. Under government persuasion, no US publisher would touch the book.
The official CIA response to Coleman’s charges and its normal cover for its secret drug operations was the term, “controlled delivery.” Ostensibly, in order to catch all the participants in a giant drug ring, the CIA allows a “few” drug shipments on board civilian airlines in order to trace how it gets into the US. However, Coleman and others in the DEA couldn’t help but notice that a much greater quantity was being allowed to go through than would be necessary for a sting operation. In addition many military pilots and ground operations personnel have discovered large quantities of drugs moving even on military cargo aircraft--which certainly couldn’t have qualified as “controlled delivery” or a sting operation.
In any case, one German baggage handler claims the CIA told them to let it through without checking. The CIA has admitted to this specific practice before, but claim they didn’t have any such operations in December of 1988 (plausible deniability at work). This is false. There is other testimony that on 21 December the CIA sent two brown "Samsonite" suitcases from Berlin via Frankfurt to Seattle in a drug operation called “Korea.” One of these suitcases was subsequently discovered in Lockerbie, the other one did arrive in Seattle on a different flight. Is it only coincidence that the CIA uses the same kind of brown “Samsonite” suitcases that terrorist bombers use?
Even more ominous are the stories coming from Scottish police and investigators claiming they were prohibited from going through the wreckage in Lockerbie for two days while CIA and FBI plainclothes agents feverishly searched through and hauled off numerous pieces of baggage. They were then threatened if they revealed anything about the US interference. So, some big questions remain: what was the CIA trying to recover that was so sensitive? and did the CIA know it was heroin or a bomb when it gave instructions to let the suitcase pass in Frankfurt? Heroin was also found among the wreckage, so obviously both drugs and a bomb were on the plane.
DID THE US GOVERNMENT KNOW THE PLANE WAS DOOMED?
As in the OKC bombing case, there is evidence here that certain government personnel were warned in advance to cancel reservations on Pan Am 103. At least two warnings about a bomb on a US airliner came through the FAA and various agencies in Germany. Here is a partial list of US and South African officials who suddenly backed out of flight 103 to New York: John McCarty, US ambassador; Steve Green, assistant administrator, office of intelligence DEA; Oliver Revell, son of Buck Revell, FBI-head investigation for the Lockerbie case; John McCarty, US ambassador to Cyprus; Pik Botha, the former South African foreign minister (who sold out SA to the globalists); and Botha’s entire delegation of 22 persons, including General Mallon, Defense Minister, and General Van Tonda, head of the South African Secret Service (BOSS).
Enter scenario #3:
Strangely, one group of the CIA’s own, a Middle East team who had knowledge of CIA illegal drug and weapons operations, was not warned. CIA agents Charles McKee, Matthew Kevin Gannon, Daniel Emmet O'Connor and Ronald Albert Lariviere died in the explosion of Fight PA-103. At least one source from within the government has claimed that McKee and his team had complained about CIA weapons shipments to Syrian terrorists as well as about the large quantities of drugs the CIA was facilitating for shipment to the US. Higher-ups in the CIA had allegedly tried to stonewall their demands for answers (as has been the case in several other documented cases involving drug operations in the military and the DEA). In frustration they were flying home on their own accord, against orders, to present evidence to Congress. It is my opinion that the CIA likely considered them a substantial threat, and chose to eliminate them before they could reach the US.
If true, this is a story that will never see the light of day in the mainstream press. Due to space considerations in this brief I have left out myriad details relative to the so-called forensic evidence against the two Libyan patsies. There are books full of troubling data on this issue, pointing out the CIA’s fantastic claims (e.g. clothing inside the bomb suitcase miraculously surviving the blast so that it can be traced to a single shop in Malta). The conclusions I have drawn are my own. It’s relatively easy to come to other conclusions due to the CIA’s entanglement in drugs and all the main suspects, including terrorists. But I have learned over long experience that the story the government tries to suppress the most is usually closer to the truth. Other bits and pieces will undoubtedly leak out from time to time, but my basic suspicion that the CIA was silencing a group of its own whistleblowers probably won’t change. Of one thing I am certain. The dark side of the US government is so deeply involved in illicit activities and is so intent on keeping them secret that they will stoop to almost any means to suppress the truth.
SEPT 15, 2000
SUMMARY OF THE UN MILLENNIAL SUMMIT 2000
The UN Millennial Summit conference held in New York on September 5-9, 2000 was, indeed, the largest meeting of heads of state ever held in the history of the world. There were actually two conferences going on simultaneously: 1) the UN Millennial Summit, which was mostly perfunctory, giving a public platform for national leaders to have their “day in the sun,” and 2) a special series of meetings organized by the Gorbachev Foundation called the World Forum. As I explained in an earlier brief, it is my analysis that there are two major factors vying for power in the New World Order--the US-British (Tory) faction which holds all the military and financial controls, and the European-British (Labour) faction which is further to the left and which controls at least 3/4 of the votes in the UN General Assembly. The US-British faction calls the shots because it has control over all the financial powers in the international community (IMF, World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, etc.). The European faction is publicly on good terms with their US and British counterparts, but privately they chafe at having no real power in the NWO halls of power.
All of the private consultations between heads of state took place at the UN summit, and none of the content of these secret meetings was revealed to the press. The most public debates on substantive issues took place at a competing symposium called the World Forum--a Gorbachev sponsored event designed to draw more attention to the issues most important to the European left. For example, there was a rousing debate critical of the UN’s peacekeeping role, giving numerous examples of its failure worldwide. But at its conclusion even the critics joined with UN apologists in endorsing the suggestion that the solution lies in giving the UN more independent police power. Otherwise, the public portions of the formal summit were more noteworthy for what was not done rather than for what was publicly expressed.
Conservatives in the United States were carefully scrutinizing this conference due to its widely publicized agenda (Charter for Global Democracy) which promised to implement major structural changes that would have clearly undermined individual and national sovereignty. Here is a brief review of that agenda and how each aspect faired at the summit:
1. Consolidation of all international agencies (IMF, World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, Economic Development Agencies, etc.) under the direct control of the UN. This was never broached in public, but was discussed in private sessions and rejected by the US and Britain, which funds most of these private entities and which controls the selection of leaders to staff them.
2. Direct regulation of all international corporations and international financial transactions via a new UN agency to be called the “Economic Council.” This is pure Marxist central planning and was only proposed publicly by Mikhael Gorbachev in a World Forum speech. The proposal was totally rejected by all the Western leaders since it would be devastating to world markets.
3. Independent source of revenue for the UN, e.g. an internet tax or a sales tax on world oil and fuel sales or a tax on commercial use of the global commons (airspace and oceans). This was listed as a future goal in the final agreement, but nothing binding was implemented. Such a proposal would require each nation’s approval.
4. Eliminate the veto power and permanent member status of nations sitting on the Security Council. This would have done more to eliminate national sovereignty than any other proposal. It was never put forth as a concrete proposal because it would have required a major change in the UN Charter and would have broached the sensitive subject of national sovereignty directly--which the Powers That Be (PTB) are loath to do. In any case, such a suggestion would have been deemed “dead on arrival” at the US Foreign Affairs Committee chaired by Senator Jesse Helms. The best the UN leaders in the Euro faction could do was suggest an expansion of the Security Council, supposedly to make it more “democratic.” This would have the effect of spreading the veto power around sufficiently to make it a nuisance. Hopefully, in the aftermath the big 6 would then be forced to scrap it. But nobody took this proposal seriously, for now.
5. Authorize a standing UN army . This has universal support among the big global powers who face increased resistance from their own taxpayers at the expense of keeping UN peacekeeping forces around the world for seemingly infinite periods of time. They would like to be able to pass this hot potato off to some global UN bureaucracy to avoid the political heat at home. The smaller nations which are always the object of the UN intervention oppose a standing army. In any case, this proposal won’t go anywhere without first agreeing to a UN source of taxation, which currently has no support among the citizen taxpayers.
6. UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies. This proposal has as its underlying intent the confiscation of all private arms, total nuclear disarmament and the eventual disbanding of all national armed forces. No specific proposal was suggested or voted upon at the summit. Only a few euphemistic words were included about “controlling the illegal traffic in arms” in the final agreement on future goals.
7. Individual and national compliance with all UN "Human Rights" treaties and declarations. The list of unratified treaties the UN is pushing is long. Each has the trappings of fine print which threaten to undermine sovereign actions in self-defense. While the holdouts would not and cannot agree to a binding compliance with these various treaties without a vote of their national legislatures, most went ahead and signed the statement of future goals that gives token acceptance to these agreements.
8. International Court of Criminal Justice would become mandatory on all UN members. This is a major sovereignty issue which subjects citizens of a sovereign country to a judicial system which does not have the kinds of Constitutional protections inherent in the US system. In fact, all citizens of other countries would be disadvantaged if only in having to hire costly legal counsel to represent them at the International court. This too was relegated to the final agreement on future goals as leaders of democratic countries not currently signers of this convention cannot do so without the approval of their national governments.
9. Calls for economic and environmental controls to ensure "sustainable development." Numerous Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have mapped out draconian proposals in the sphere of environmental controls. But aside from the inclusion of the Kyoto Treaty in the wish list of favored treaties, no specific UN agency was created or authorized to put this into force as international law.
10. Calls for the establishment of an International Environmental Court. This would give separate prosecutorial power to a radical environmental control agenda which would also constitute a major infringement of national sovereignty. As expected, no specific action was taken on this issue.
11. A global warming agenda that requires the creation of a "high-level action team" to allocate carbon emission based on a per-capita formula for each nation. This is language that was written several years ago and is no longer a separate issue. It is now included in the Kyoto Treaty, and was the major reason few industrial nations would sign it.
12. Calls for the cancellation of all third world debts and the establishment of equitable sharing of global resources, as allocated by the United Nations. No one dares mention that the US taxpayers have guaranteed all of these loans. Outright debt forgiveness would bankrupt the big international banks if they were forced to absorb these losses themselves so, naturally, they will recur to the US treasury, and by extension, the US taxpayer to cover these loans if forgiven. The statement about “sharing global resources” is nothing more than global planning and redistribution at its worst. This cannot be done without having a chilling effect on international investments. It would strangle market growth and cause a world-wide depression.
ANALYSIS: Although I predicted that the contest over global leadership would not permit the European faction’s Charter for Global Democracy to succeed, I did not think the Europeans would come away with nothing at all. It fact, it appears as if the real international powers simply said “not yet” to everything the European faction proposed. What was signed instead was a euphemistically worded wish list of future goals. For a look at the only public version I have seen so far, see the following URL: http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/presidentsworkingdraft.htm.
Rather than a binding document (which would have caused problems at home) this softly worded political declaration was drafted to mollify all sides. It began with a pledge of loyalty to the UN: “We...reaffirm our faith in the Organization and its Charter as indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world.” The declaration continues with six euphemistic principles (freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibility) that are pregnant with dangerous double meanings. “Respect for nature” and its “precepts of sustainable development” turns out to refer to environmental controls on property, population control and central control of economic activity. “Shared responsibility” will evolve into a central planning role for the UN in “managing worldwide economic and social development.” It also calls for “comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects” but falls short in admitting their intent to remove the veto power.
The one major change in the final draft involved sovereignty. Obviously, out of fear of scrutiny from both the left and right, they added, “We rededicate ourselves to support all efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States; respect for their territorial integrity and political independence.” The fact that sovereignty was not in the first draft shows the duplicity of the UN on this crucial question.
Don’t be fooled by the pretensions of unanimity during the summit. There was a lot of private controversy in private meetings according to one delegate. The key issue is not that the two major factions disagree on their intentions to someday administer a socialist world state via the UN, but rather who is going to control that socialist global state, and to what degree it will permit a partially free market to operate.
Because the European faction is aligned with Moscow through the hidden linkage of the Socialist International, it tends to favor Marxist-socialist solutions that lead to incentive-stifling economic policies. The US/British Fabian faction is much more subtle in its approach. The newest version of Fabian socialism is called the “third way” --supposedly neither socialist nor free-market. Proponents like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair keep their citizens thinking they live in a “free market” while milking them for all they can with hidden inflation, public debt, taxation and regulation. The bottom line is that while both factions want a socialist one-world control system, the US/British faction (which still controls all the levers of power) favors an economic control system that more effectively maintains the illusion of liberty--hence keeping the productive classes under control. If they let the UN General Assembly have ultimate control, this mass of mostly Marxist tin-horn dictators will vote themselves unlimited wealth and the whole system will go bust.
The US/British faction knows this and thus keeps pushing for a “go slow” strategy that won’t awaken the “sleeping giant” in America. As I have stated before, the US globalist leaders only intend to tackle the big issues of sovereignty during a huge future crisis of their own creation (another world war) that will make the sacrifice of national sovereignty appear as a necessary step toward building a world UN army necessary to defeat the Russia/China axis--the future enemy. The fact that the Europeans gained nothing out of this huge Millennial Summit effort to me is evidence that the US/British faction is still firmly in control and that slow change will continue until war comes.
To most sophisticated businessmen today (who naively think they know what is going on in the world because they read Time magazine), the idea of a future world war is unthinkable. They cannot conceive why anyone would want to ruin this fabulous economy and good times we now experience. This is because most people don’t understand that there are powerful evil forces in (and outside) of the world that don’t have the same motives we do. When war does comes, it will be a surprise attack with nuclear missiles, without warning, and the world will go from light to darkness in a single day. The combined shock of surprise and lack of preparation will paralyze the entire Western world and leave men vulnerable to the blackmail of hopelessness and despair. Out of that mood of despair, globalist leaders will present the survivors with only one choice--to join forces in a world government and military that will promise to “save” them, but that will also (without admitting it) never again allow individual liberty nor national sovereignty. In short, don’t rejoice over the mild ending to this summit. The worst is yet to come.
SEPT 22, 2000
MY IMPRESSIONS OF ISRAEL:
I recently returned from my fact-finding trip to the Middle East. What follows is my frank and personal assessment of the modern state of Israel, without the embellishments of rose-colored glasses. Millions of religious pilgrims trek to the “Holy Land” each year, skimming the surface of the country in almost total isolation from reality. Their guided tours, cushioned by air-conditioned tour buses and 5 star hotels, concentrate on what was, not what is. Churches dot the Judean landscape, each laying claim to a piece of the past that, with few exceptions, doesn’t exist anymore. I would estimate that fully 80% of the “holy sites” are not the actual location where the original events occurred--which in most cases is virtually impossible to determine. The famed “Via Doloroso” tracing the presumed path of Jesus’ agonizing trek to Golgotha is merely an arbitrary walk through 14th century streets built on 40 foot deep rubble left over from the numerous destructions of Jerusalem’s past. The few holy sites that are authentic are encumbered by heavy stone medieval churches with dark interiors that do not, in my opinion, impart any of the spiritual feeling of the original place.
The Israeli government itself helps perpetuate the mystical, romantic illusions of the past, being acutely aware of the millions of dollars each year generated by religious tourism. The old city of Jerusalem is bathed in soft rosy artificial light at night to give tourists that romantic feeling they can write home about. But the selective rosy views only mask the chronic tension enveloping this relatively hostile land, a region bereft of natural beauty--except for about 5 weeks during the spring when wild flowers briefly bloom, and commercial photographers descend to work their art of selective embellishment that makes Israel look so enchanting in tourist brochures. So great is the contrast between promotion and reality that psychological clinics in Israel have a special term to describe the disillusionment that often affects religious pilgrims. It’s called the “Jerusalem Syndrome” and refers to a chronic form of depression that can afflict those who cannot deal with the extreme contrast between holy and unholy. But with all that said, and in spite of the crass commercialization of religious antiquities, I must admit that one can still sense the God of Israel hovering over the land. I have no doubt that He intends to redeem Israel someday--and believe me, it needs redemption.
LAND: I was struck by the steep ruggedness of terrain in the Judean and Samarian hill country. One doesn’t get an accurate impression of the stark hostility of this terrain from photographs. Though not very high in altitude the hills of Israel are almost barren, extremely rocky and punctuated by deep ravines and gorges that make travel in central Israel a strain on man and machine. From Biblical stories and movies one gets the impression that trips to Bethlehem, Bethany or even Nazareth are relatively peaceful walks in the pastoral countryside. In reality, there is almost no greenery, only rocks and sand of a fairly bland hue-- completely lacking in the brilliant colors and shapes characteristic of the deserts in Utah and Arizona. Travel involves major descents into gorges often over a thousand feet in depth and climbing back up again repeatedly.
It was also sad to note how little topsoil had been allowed to develop in the hill country. Although the rainfall is extremely sparse here, I attribute the main cause to extreme overgrazing. For centuries the Judean hills have been used to graze sheep and goats which have extracted the last once of nutrition from this land and not given anything back. Even today herds of sheep and goats, mostly Bedouin-Arab owned, forage on almost bare ground with no visible grass--only tiny bits of stubble. This destruction of the long term soil development is typical of many things I witnessed in Israel on Arab lands. There seems to be a politically correct notion that Arab tribal nomadic culture requires that they be left to age-old practices, no matter how damaging they are to the land agriculturally. The Israeli government is also under severe pressure internationally to let the Arabs do whatever they want.
AGRICULTURE: There are two fertile plains in Israel, one along the Mediterranean coast and the other around the sea of Galilee and the Jordan river (which is more like a small creek). Both areas have been put into intensive cultivation by the Israelis. While there have been many comparisons to the Biblical adage of making the “desert blossom,” the extreme efforts applied to maximize water resources in relatively poor soil have had many negative environmental effects. Water is extremely scarce, and thus Israel has been at the forefront in the development of drip irrigation systems that conserve the maximum amount of water. Large diversion projects of Jordan river water have, however, overtaxed the northern water resources in order to expand agriculture to the Negev desert to the south, where the sandy soil is much less fertile. Maximum utilization and reuse of fixed water supplies tends, over time, to concentrate contaminants and salt content, leading to the corruption of the aquifers. Both Israeli and Arab controlled agricultural areas pump large quantities of water out of the ground with deep wells. Overpumping from the aquifers has resulted in an increase in the saline content as water from the Mediterranean sea seeps in to replace it. Excessive chemical and fertilizer use in agriculture and industry has also led to extreme pollution levels in rivers and groundwater sources. Some rivers are actually toxic.
The Israelis are reacting to the problem with some earnest. More strict environmental regulations are being implemented, but the Arab controlled areas are exempt for political reasons. There is also a growing movement in Israel to switch to organic farming. I visited a few Kibbutzim (collective farms) and Moshavim (cooperative farms) that are on the cutting edge of organic farming. Israel has developed a special fabric covering that allows them to grow vegetables free from insects inside a greenhouse type enclosure. It is more costly, so much of this elite produce goes to markets serving the orthodox Jewish communities world wide that require certified insect-free food.
Israel has established a significant agricultural outreach to other nations who desire to implement the unique low-water farming techniques it has developed. The Arabs in Israel and neighboring Jordan have especially benefited from Israel’s willingness to share their agricultural expertise. Jordan has been radically transformed into an agricultural Mecca due to the willingness of the late King Hussein to work with the Israelis rather than reject all contact as the more radical Arab factions have done. For Arabs living next door to productive Jewish agro projects, the lure of becoming productive farmers has in many cases overcome the innate hostility between the two cultures. I saw it with the Druse Arabs in the Golan heights and in the Arab areas in Galilee. In these areas orchards may not be as well kept as the Jewish farms but at least they are vastly more productive than before. Only in PLO controlled areas did I find such a strong hatred of everything Jewish that they refused to join in the new green wave of agro-prosperity. As one example of extreme resentment, young Arab radicals regularly destroy trees that the Jews plant as part of their national reforestation effort. This kind of hatred is an all too common byproduct of constant PLO propaganda and incitement to exterminate all Jews.
ECONOMY: Most Americans don’t realize that Israel has one of the most tightly controlled statist economies in the world. It is socialist in the extreme due to a combination of early Zionist collectivist fervor and the influence of Russian and Eastern European Marxists that came to Israel and formed the core of the ruling Labor Party. Israel’s Histadrut, a kind of super labor union, controls every aspect of Israel’s economic life--at least until recently. During the last decade, there has been a slow but persistent movement toward free-market reforms in Israel--not because the Jews have much of a free market philosophy in their heritage, but rather because they have a naturally competitive spirit and were forced to compete in a fast-paced international economy. When the government refused to implement needed reforms, there began a ground swell of rebellion in the 1980s and 90s against Israel’s ponderous education, medical, tax and regulatory establishment. The more the government tried to suppress the gray and black markets, the greater the “brain drain” in Israel became as thousands emigrating to the US and Europe.
The government’s virtual monopoly on television was broken after private illegal cable services began sprouting up all over Israel. The Histadrut’s monopoly on health care was broken by a persistent gray market for after-hours surgery performed by low paid doctors eager for extra money. Even Israel’s ponderous “free” public education establishment is under attack as religious and private schools are being formed in ever-increasing numbers to supplement low quality public education. Often the best teachers can make more money teaching privately on the side than in their state controlled teaching jobs. In Israel, public money is doled out even to orthodox Jewish schools which tends to keep them tied to certain political parties which promote those subsidies in the Knesset.
Dependency upon government is a chronic addiction in all of Israel, keeping taxes so high that Israel has to beg for American aid and loan guarantees every year, producing a very high ratio of foreign debt to GNP. Income taxes have been as high as 80% in modern Israel, so naturally, tax evasion is rampant. Recently, to help stem the growth of the underground tax-evading economy, income tax rates were reduced to below 50%, and new taxes imposed such as the 17% VAT tax. But I noticed that only established storefront businesses (mostly Jewish) collected the tax. In the Arab markets (part of the underground economy) I was never charged the VAT tax.
POLITICS: There are no free-market political parties in Israel, only shades of statism. Parties on the “right” are orthodox religious parties who are opposed to “land for peace” concessions, but otherwise have their hands in the public coffers as much as the parties on the “left.” Except for the recent change to popular election of the Prime Minister, all voting in Israel is for political parties--not individual candidates. You vote for the party of your choice and the party produces a list of who will serve in the Knesset. Thus, the Israeli model of parliamentary politics is very close to Lenin’s dictum of maintaining rigid “party discipline.” Members of the Knesset owe their entire political existence to the party, and only indirectly to the electorate. Thus, the powers at the top can and do demand total conformity to the party line. For this reason, Israeli politics are rampant with corruption. Payoffs and personal enrichment are commonplace as is the inevitable blackmail that comes when a party official tries to oppose the party line. Virtually all high political offices, including those in the court system are part of the political patronage system. Hence, it is almost impossible for a beleaguered Knesset member to recur to the courts for justice, if the Powers That Be are against him. The mere threat of prosecution is turned off and on like a spigot to induce the desired leverage on wavering politicians. This week’s announcement that the investigation into Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption charges is being dropped is a tell-tale sign that the PTB are intending to resurrect Netanyahu as a leader in the Likud. This is part of the ongoing evidence pointing to external control of both major parties in Israel.
The Labor Party has undergone a continual stream of factionalization since 1948 when they began with an outright majority of the 120 seats of the Knesset. Now they hold less than 20 seats and must build coalitions with other parties in order to rule. The Labor Party still has two major factions within its ranks--one allied with Shimon Peres who is tightly controlled and financed by the European NWO globalists, and the other aligned with Ehud Barak, the current Prime Minister who, in turn, is controlled by the US faction of the NWO globalists (Kissinger and group). The other two major parties Likud and Shas range in support between 15-17 seats and must form coalitions with other opposing parties in order to govern.
The Likud Party is the Israeli equivalent of the American Republican Party. While the Likud has several members who are pro-free market in orientation, the leadership under Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu is as corrupt as the Labor Party. Sharon is a close friend of Shimon Peres, so there is little difference in their politics except that Sharon pretends to be the opposition. Bibi Netanyahu owes his entire political career to the Henry Kissinger group in the US who financed his education, got him a job on Wall Street and guided his rise in Israeli politics.
The Shas Party is a “right wing” party of Sephardic Jews whose base of support resides primarily among the Moroccan Jews who have immigrated to Israel. Its most prominent leader (Deri) is currently in jail on corruption charges stemming from years of taking bribes from his coalition partners in the Labor Party--who blackmailed Deri in order to keep the Shas Party aligned with the leftist Labor agenda--something the Shas membership nearly rebelled over.
What is ironic is that the Arab population in Israel controls 10-12 seats and thus has become the determining faction that can make or break any coalition. For this reason, it would be political suicide for the Israelis to allow a repatriation of millions of Arab refugees to Israel, who would then be able to command a majority of votes in the Knesset. It is specifically for this reason that Arafat is demanding not only an independent state, but that Israel (not the Palestinian state) absorb almost all the Arab refugees. Arafat fully intends to take back Israel either by militarily conquest (after Israel’s security position is weakened by “land for peace” deals), or by democratic conquest via forcing the return of refugees to Israel.
PEOPLE: There are notable exceptions to the generalizations I will make here about Jews and Arabs, but I find these general observations do correctly describe some of the underlying reasons for long-term conflict between the two groups. The Jews represent about 80% of the population of Israel, and perhaps only 20% of these could be considered deeply orthodox. The rest are composed of traditional and secular Jews, most of whom have some feeling for generic Zionism (support of a homeland for the Jews) but who are otherwise very liberal and left-leaning in their politics. The Sephardic Jews are Semitic peoples and tend to be more fervent in their defense of Israel as a nation. The Ashkenazi Jews come from eastern Europe and Russia and tend to provide most of the high intellectual power in Israel, as well as a disproportionate amount of its socialist and Marxist policies.
There is a fair amount of conflict among the Jews themselves, as the various factions hardly agree on anything. In contrast to this innate competition, however, there is a general feeling of collective unity that keeps them from splitting apart entirely, borne out of a common heritage and welded together by persecution. This same collective mentality has allowed the Jews to prosper under socialism (at least in the incipient phases of economic development) that normally proves disastrous in other cultures. For example, none of the collective farms the Israelis helped develop in Africa survived, even when managed by Israelis. Israel’s brand of socialism has, itself, had to give way to free market techniques in order to compete in the world economy. Many Kibbutzim have dropped their most onerous collective policies or have converted to Moshav-type cooperatives. The Jews are clearly the most industrious group of people in the entire Middle East and thus are destined to lead economically.
On a negative note, I found a certain amount of insensitivity to the feelings of conscience among both Jews and Arabs. Everywhere we drove in Israel, there was a pervasive discourteousness, a quickness to anger, and a reluctance to give way in heavy traffic. Although Jews are, generally, highly rational and quick mentally, they have a certain tendency to reject, in a very off-handed manner, new concepts that didn’t fit into existing patterns of thought. Despite their quick minds, Israeli Jews are almost totally blind to the deceptions and corruption involving many leaders at the national level. They have almost no concept of the dangers of the NWO and the globalist agenda to subjugate Israeli sovereignty for the “global good.” Even though approximately 80% of Israel knows about Barry Chamish’s startling investigations documenting the role of the Israeli secret service (Shabak) in the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, they do nothing. So while there is a subtle collective feeling on behalf of their national survival, it gets mistakenly mingled with a reliance upon national leaders which produces a uniform type of apathy concerning individual action.
There is perhaps an overconfidence inherent in the Jewish mind as well. In intellectual discussions I find it very difficult to get thinking Jews to consider other points of view. On more than one occasion while interviewing some of the best and brightest Jewish intellectuals, I found them completely insensitive to certain spiritual and libertarian ideals. At the same time, ironically, there seems to be a fascination in the Jewish mind with intricate conceptual thought as evidenced by the great time invested in study of the tiniest details in the Talmud and in other rabbinical writings. Why they cannot see through the complexity of global or national deceptions and conspiracies eludes me.
Factionalism is rampant in Israel due to the intensity with which debate is embraced, especially on religious points, which are highly subject to the special interpretations of each different school of rabbinical thought. I will say, however, that I found the orthodox Jewish settlers to be happy, industrious group, filled with passion for life and for Israel. Their cooperative Yeshivot (schools) are a model of self-help and sacrifice in order to provide a better life for their children. They are certainly not the “right wing” fanatics the liberal media in Israel makes them out to be. Without this small core of faithful orthodox Jews, Israel might not have received the many small miracles that led to national independence and subsequent victories over a determined enemy with a massive quantitative advantage.
The Arabs are generally less intense than the Jews, more likable when not agitated, but less industrious as a whole. Part of the Arab apathy in overcoming environmental deficiencies of their Middle East surroundings may be tied to the problematic and fatalistic Islamic doctrine asserting that much of the bad that happens is the “will of Allah.” In contrast, the Jewish concept of being treated by God as a collective (The chosen people, the House of Israel) seems to motivate individual initiative to assist the salvation of the group. Despite this collective view the Jews have of mutual protection the Jews tend to be independent thinkers. In contrast, Arabs tend to be greatly swayed by group psychology. If they have good leaders, they are peaceable and friendly. If they have bad leaders, as is presently the case in the extreme, they can be capable of mass hysteria and panic or even aggression. Both Jews and Arabs are somewhat captivated by materialism, but in different ways. The Jews view material gain as an ongoing tool for progress while many Arabs tend to view material gain as an end in and of itself. Thus, possession of “things” is a sign of prestige in the Arab world. Sadly, because of this, petty theft is a common way of life among many Arabs and is a constant source of irritation for the Jews. Some Jewish settlements have a hard and fast policy of not hiring any Arab labor. However, because Jews tend to rise to entrepreneurial levels quickly in life, the Arabs provide most of the basic labor pool. Thus, Arabs working among the Jews are a permanent fixture in Israel, and of benefit to both Jew and Arab. However, the constant problem of things “disappearing” keeps a barrier of distrust between the two peoples.
There is another imbalance in the relationship between Jews and Arabs that must be aired. Except in times when border areas are sealed during terrorist attacks, Arabs can come and go among the Jewish controlled areas in perfect safety, with no fear of reprisals and vindictive behavior. Yet Jews can never go into Arab controlled areas of the Palestinian Authority and have that same assurance of safety. In the Gaza strip there is a separate strip of land owned by Jewish settlements on the coast. The Jews must pass through Palestinian controlled land to get to their zone, and often they must be accompanied by armed convoys of Israeli troops. This week, two Israeli soldiers were wounded (one fatally) in an Arab attack on a military convoy trying to protection Jewish civilians trying to get to their homes in Netzarim--a Jewish settlement in the Gaza strip. Clearly this is evidence that only the Israelis can be trusted to provide overall security to the lands where a mixed population of Jews and Arabs exist. I don’t believe this is a reflection of the common Arab himself, who has a tradition of hospitality, but rather of the hostile Palestinian leadership that is itching for a fight.
Also in the news this week was a deliberately-staged Arab riot protesting the entrance of Ariel Sharon and a group of Knesset members onto the temple mount. By prior agreement with the Arabs, Jews have a right to free access to the temple mount. But wherever the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been given security authority over a sector occupied by both Arabs and Jews, they refuse to allow Jews safe passage. Worse yet, the Israeli government lets the PA get away with it and the international community says nothing. In this case, the Palestinian Police chief made clear and provocative statements about the impending visit designed to encourage Arab radicals to gather at the temple mount and prepare to attack--which they did, resulting in minor wounds to 34 Israeli policemen. But I suspect that Sharon was not simply trying to publicize the fact that the Arafat would not be fair or even handed in the management of the temple mount. Likud may well be helping the Labor Party’s initiative to give away sovereignty of the temple mount to the United Nations. By precipitating a nasty Arab reaction on the temple mount, it helps move the international community to a position that rejects both Jewish and Arab sovereignty over the contested holy site. The UN tries hard to maintain the image of fairness, but historically the UN has only acted to curtail Jewish self-defense, not Arab aggression. It will happen again if the UN has its way.
OCTOBER 6, 2000
MEDIA DISTORTIONS ON THE VIOLENCE IN ISRAEL
As Arab violence escalated in Israel this past week, the media bent over backwards to present a one-sided, distorted view painting the picture of a “cruel and domineering Israel suppressing the civil rights of the peace-loving Arab population.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It wouldn’t even be correct to say that there was some fault on both sides. Israel is bending over backwards trying to pacify the international community (an impossible task) by making almost all the concessions in recent negotiations. But 95% doesn’t seem to be enough for Arafat and the world community. They are determined to have all of Israel.
The current violence in Israel has been deliberately instigated by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority (PA) and the press knows it. Yet, almost every news article contains a statement that the violence was sparked by the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount. Here is a typical example from the London Times: “At least 77 people have died since Ariel Sharon, the Likud Party leader, set off a wave of unrest across Israel and the Palestinian areas by insisting on touring the Al Aqsa complex to assert Israeli sovereignty over it.” This is untrue on all counts. The author’s use of the term ‘Al Aqsa complex’ instead of Temple Mount shows a preferance for Arab terminology and claims, and gives an impression that Sharon tried to enter a Moslem area, which he did not. As for the beginning of the violence, it had already started the previous week. In fact, plans by the PA to begin a major campaign of violence were already known to Israeli intelligence. I was in Israel two weeks prior to the Sharon visit to the Temple Mount, and the Arab stone throwing and harassment of Jewish vehicular traffic in the settlements had already begun. I was unable to visit a contact in Netzarim due to Arab attacks on Jews and their military convoy. It is true that a powerful upsurge in Arab attacks began after Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, but the PA was clearly looking for an excuse to launch their new “intifada” (title of the previous Arab uprisings in Gaza that did much to undermine the Jew’s will to resist the calls for “peace”). Last, Sharon wasn’t trying to assert sovereignty, which was won years ago. The Jews won sovereignty over the temple mount in the 1967 war when Jordanian control was overthrown. Even in victory, the Israelis voluntarily agreed to allow the Palestinians to have security control over the mount (which was deemed a foolish concession by orthodox Jews), under the explicit agreement that the Palestinians would allow everyone equal access. "The Temple Mount is under Israeli sovereignty and it is the right of every Jewish person to visit the site," said Sharon after his contested visit. "There cannot exist a situation in which Jews cannot visit the holiest site in the world for Judaism." Rejecting Palestinian claims that the visit was a provocation, Likud MK (Member of Knesset) Reuven Rivlin said: "If being here is a provocation, then the very presence of the Jews in the land of Israel is a provocation."
While Sharon’s purpose was to demonstrate to the world that the Arabs could not be trusted to honor their agreement or to be fair stewards of the Temple Mount, it was the words of the Palestinian Preventive Security Service chief Col. Jibril Rajoub that provided clear provocation. He warned on the morning of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, that the visit may trigger confrontations worse than the riots that erupted in September 1996, and that he would not intervene to stop them. Is that what is called “preventative security” by the Palestinian Authority? On Oct. 6, Israeli soldiers had to storm the Temple Mount and take it back from radical Islamic protesters after they used the mount as a platform to throw rocks and petrol bombs down upon Israeli security forces below. Palestinian security forces on the mount did nothing to stop the Arab attacks.
In the aftermath, which is still ongoing, the international press continues to showcase the wounds various Palestinians have received after Israeli forces engaged the perpetrators of violence. They never show what the individuals were doing before being shot by (metal jacketed) rubber bullets or real bullets, nor do they show pictures of Israeli soldiers wounded or killed by the Palestinian police who have turned their guns on those who have come to save Jews from Arab violence. Must we remind the international community that the Oslo Accords, touted by “peacemakers” and signed by Arafat, promise that, in exchange for allowing increased Palestinian autonomy in security issues, Palestinian police (armed by Israel) would ensure order on behalf of both Arabs and Jews in their areas of control? This they have not done, and no one on the left bothers to investigate or complain.
During my visit to Israel, I acquired numerous private sources that have presented me with first hand accounts. There has been no better synopsis of these attacks on Jewish civilians than those catalogued by Arutz-7 the embattled Jewish news service that the pro-NWO Israeli government has been trying to muzzle for months. Here is a sample from their service: [my comments or clarifications in brackets].
“An Israeli passenger was wounded lightly when shots were fired on a public bus on its way to Gush Etzion [south of Jerusalem, location of the Arab massacre of a Jewish Kibutz in 1948]. The incident occurred between the road's two tunnels, and Egged [Bus Company] has announced that it has stopped service along the road. Shots were also fired this afternoon at buildings in Beitar Illit, cars near the Latrun junction [site of the old British Fort which was given to the Arabs in the 1948 war and used to stop supplies from getting to besieged Jerusalem], at Netzarim, and at Joseph's Tomb. Senior officers in Shechem told residents of nearby Elon Moreh that the Palestinian snipers are aware of the Israeli policy of "selective and restrained retaliatory shooting," and therefore hide behind a group of civilians when they shoot upon Israeli soldiers. [In one egregious incident, Palestinian police approached in an ambulance, knowing that it would not be fired upon, and then proceeded to unload a supply of molatov cocktails.]
“Noam Arnon, the spokesman for Hebron's Jewish community [Hebron is south of Jerusalem and was given over to the Arabs in a ‘peace deal’ by the Likud party under Benyamin Netanyahu], reports that an Arab sniper fired overnight from a hill overlooking the Avraham Avinu neighborhood. Jews this morning found some ten bullet holes in a home, a car, and a kindergarten. No one was hurt. ‘We warned Binyamin Netanyahu,’ said Arnon, ‘when he agreed to withdraw from Hebron, that the Arab hill controls the area and that Israel should not abandon it - but Netanyahu didn't listen.’
“A short but violent Arab outburst occurred today in Jaffa, when a mob of Arabs attacked Israeli and international journalists. An Israeli and Italian reporter were wounded. [No reports were aired in Italy or elsewhere in Europe detailing this Arab attack--only negative reports on Israel’s fighting back]. Several Israeli soldiers were wounded over the night and early morning -- one by gunfire at the Adam junction north of Jerusalem's Pisgat Ze'ev, one in Gush Etzion, and two in Morag in the Gaza Strip when Arabs opened fire on a bus. An Israeli woman was hurt by bricks thrown at her car near Ariel... Well over 40 cases of rock-throwing at Jewish cars have been registered in Lod and Ramle over the past 24 hours... Arab-instigated violence was reported in Jerusalem's Armon HaNetziv neighborhood, on the Modi'in-Givat Ze'ev highway, the Kiryat Arba-Kiryat Gat road, and near Eli...
“Over 100 cases of arson have been reported [Arabs burning Israel’s newly planted forests out of spite for the Jews’ beautification efforts]. One of the latest is a giant blaze between Rosh Ha'Ayin and Petach Tikvah, which is advancing towards the Jewish communities of Matan, Nirit, and Yarchit.. There have been 80 cases of arson in the past day, destroying thousands of dunams [1 dunam = 1/ 4 acre]of forest. It is definite that they were all arson, without exception. It was systematically done - torching one place after another, in order to destroy the forests of the Land of Israel. In several areas, the Arabs even tried to prevent firemen from putting out the fires.
“Gershon Adani, a 35-year-old father of two, from the Galilee town of Oshrah near Acre, described what happened to him yesterday: ‘I was on my way home, when suddenly I was stopped by a mob of Israeli-Arabs. They were stopping all the drivers, and asking to see their papers. They let the Arab drivers go, but not the Jewish ones. I started to tell them that I was their neighbor, and have lived here among them for years, etc., but they began pelting me with bricks, rocks, and anything else... I ran into the car, locked the door shut, and somehow was able to get through the roadblock. I was hurt very badly. I got to a police checkpoint, but they couldn't help me because the ambulance was not able to get through the Arab roadblock.’ [There are a lot of leftist and liberal Jews in Israel who have bought into the propaganda about peace. The viciousness of the Arab attacks on innocent Jewish civilians has made some of them change their mind.] Gershon Adani said, ‘I was among those who believed in co-existence and the like. But now, I don't know, something has really changed in my thinking... I don't know if we can go back to what it was like before... I am not optimistic about the future.’
[Another “Peace Now” member said,] “‘In the past few days, there have been 170 incidents here: 30 attacks on Jewish towns, 10 firebombs and shootings, 20 roadblocks, 40 cases of rocks and bricks, and 70 cases of arson. This is a real war situation - our children didn't go to school, and we were stuck inside our towns. Only after it was understood that there was an existential danger to the towns did we get help from police and army. [Regarding the future of Jewish-Arab relations:] We worked hard for years to plant the seeds of cooperation and harmonic co-existence, and what we have harvested is hatred. I believed that we could live together... I knew that there would be disputes, but I never dreamt that it would reach such an existentially-dangerous extent as actual attempts to burn our towns down to the ground’”. [Typical naivete of liberals everywhere. Why don’t they believe the Arab leaders who openly state their hostile intentions?]
DIRECT MEDIA DISTORTIONS
In major news venues the US and European media have broadcast the claim that Arabs are being mercilessly killed and brutalized by the Israelis. Sadly in every case, the media are lying.
Example #1: The most graphic piece of propaganda was the French video of the 12 year-old Palestinian boy huddled behind a concrete barrier with his father. Suddenly he is shot and the narrator asks the world, “What has this innocent boy deserved to be shot by Israeli soldiers?” Eyewitnesses who were present tell a very different story. The boy was part of the gang of Arab youth who were throwing stones at Jews (big rocks that are lethal). In the past week, Palestinian policemen have been using these stone throwing incidents as a planned prelude to an ambush on Israeli soldiers who inevitably show up to help the beleaguered Jews. The father of the boy knew this familiar routine ran over to extract his son from the provocation. They both got caught in the crossfire as they tried to retreat. What the video doesn’t tell you, but which the photographer knew, was that the concrete barrier the two were taking shelter behind was between them and the Israeli soldiers. Thus, the Israeli soldiers could not possibly have shot them directly, nor could they even have seen them. Palestinian police, on the other hand, were on that side of the barrier and were spraying the area with automatic weapons. Nobody knows whose bullets killed the boy, but the chances it was Israeli are very slim.
Example #2: IF HE'S BEATEN, HE MUST BE PALESTINIAN. This past Saturday, The New York Times and many other papers published a picture -- supplied by the Associated Press - of an angry Israeli policeman and a badly-beaten and bloodied man, with the caption, "An Israeli policeman and a Palestinian on the Temple Mount." The picture can be seen at - -. Dr. Aaron Grossman, of Chicago, Il., sent the following letter to the Times: "Regarding your picture on page A5 (Sept. 30) of the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian on the Temple Mount - that Palestinian is actually my son, Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish student from Chicago. He, and two of his friends, were pulled from their taxicab while traveling in Jerusalem, by a mob of Palestinian Arabs and were severely beaten and stabbed. That picture could not have been taken on the Temple Mount because there are no gas stations on the Temple Mount and certainly none with Hebrew lettering, like the one clearly seen behind the Israeli soldier attempting to protect my son from the mob."
The Wadi Ara highway (the main artery between central Israel and the Tiberias-Jezre'el Valley area) is closed to traffic because of Arab violence, A sample incident was reported by Yediot Acharonot's website, Y-net: “Yaakov Ben-Hamu, 35, of Kibbutz Beit Alfa, was driving east along the Wadi Iron (Wadi Ara) highway yesterday, between Um el-Fahm and Afula, when his way was blocked some 15 masked Arabs. They noticed that he was Jewish, dragged him out of the car, and began kicking and punching him. The driver of a passing bus saw what was happening and picked him up; there was nothing left for Ben-Hamu to do but watch out the window as the Arabs torched his car. He submitted a complaint at the nearby police station. A similar incident happened later in the same area, when a bus driver was forcibly removed from his vehicle, and the bus was set ablaze.”
Hebron Jewish Community spokesman David Wilder commented, "In many cases the Israeli army, rather than try to ensure security on the roads, simply closes them [at great hardship to the settlers, many of whom must commute for work]. One of the most ludicrous instances concerns the trans-Judea highway, leading from Hebron to Ashkelon via Kiryat Gat. This road also provides easy access to Beit Shemesh, bypassing Jerusalem. A few miles out of Hebron is the Halhul bridge that crosses over the road from above. This bridge is under total Arafat control, while the road below is under Israeli control. For the past week, Arabs have been using the bridge to bombard any moving vehicle with Israeli license plates traveling under it. Rather than send in Israeli troops to take over the bridge, or rather than use one missile to take the bridge down, Israel has closed the road. This, because the road is in ‘Arafat territory’ and the Israeli high command prefers not to 'react too harshly' to the continued attacks..." [These are the kinds of “rules of engagement” that American soldiers were under in Vietnam--that only get more people killed.] Yesha residents blocked the Ofrah-Psagot road to Arab traffic for several hours yesterday, saying, "If we can't travel freely on the roads, then why should the Palestinians be able to?" [The Jews’ frustration is with their own government which bends over backward to make sure that in no case are civilian Arabs inconvenienced over the violence their leaders initiate.]
SUMMARY: Official statistics show over 60 Arabs dead and 2000 wounded as of this week since the beginning of the violence. Few bother to count the numbers of Jewish wounded by their Arab attackers. As one Arutz-7 editor put it, “blame for the violence must fall squarely upon those who started it, which in every instance so far seems to have been the Palestinians. How is it, we'd like to know, that in a society as tightly controlled as is the Palestine Authority's, were riots and attacks on Israeli military outposts allowed to occur? Why were Palestinian security forces, who under Article 8 of the Oslo are supposed to ensure public order and security, joining the battle? Who among the top leaders of the Palestinian Authority authorized -- or at least did nothing to stop -- the violence? Perhaps the State Department, so voluble in condemning Mr. Sharon, should seek answers to those questions.”
Don’t expect a response from the UN or the US State Department to these very cogent questions. The so-called “Peace Process” is a one-way street leading to war whose ultimate purpose is to destroy Israeli sovereignty. The world may cry, “Peace, Peace” but, “there will be no peace.” (Ezekial 13:10)
OCTOBER 13, 2000
GLOBALISTIST STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST BEGINS TO UNRAVEL
Arabs, as both the British and French found out in the two previous world wars, are unpredictable allies. Neither could the Arabs trust the international community to keep its word. Now it’s Clinton’s turn to deal with Arab unpredictability, as NWO tacticians watch their vaunted “peace process” unravel before their very eyes. It began with President Clinton having to twist arms to get Arafat to stay during the recent Camp David talks. Then Madeleine Albright had to order the guards to shut the gates as Arafat tried to bolt the negotiations in Paris. The pouting Arafat refused to come out of his room the next morning to sign the partial settlement Albright had tried to get him to accept. It was clear that Arafat was no longer the obedient puppy dog of the NWO even though they had paid him millions in aid (bribes) which he squirreled away in Swiss bank accounts unbeknownst to his poverty stricken people. He wanted nothing short of complete Israeli capitulation on the remaining “peace” issues. His intransigence was now spoiling the whole deal. Even though the Israeli leaders had privately agreed to sell out their own national interests in favor of globalist intrigue, there were limits on how much they could coerce their own people to accepting without being shoved out of office.
The Arab instigated violence of the past two weeks also caught the globalists by surprise. They didn’t plan on this. I believe that Arafat decided on his own to teach them all a lesson and do his own thing, and it has thrown a big monkey wrench into globalist plans. Even the media’s carefully orchestrated management of Israeli opinion to accept the notions of “Peace Now” were about to go up in smoke. The most recent polls in Israel show that barely 30% of Jews support the former peace process. Here’s why.
Up until two weeks ago, the majority in Israel was composed of naive liberal Jews who didn’t have a clue about the New World Order or the underlying purposes of this “peace” offensive. They still don’t have a clue, but the prevailing liberal sentiment has been radically changed by the utter fanaticism in which the Arab mobs have attacked all Jews, both left and right. Prior liberal notions were built upon the illusion that the Arab leadership was sincere in desiring peace. That notion has now been totally destroyed except in the minds of a few diehard fanatics. A secondary notion, that the majority of Arabs themselves would not actually attack their Jewish neighbors, has also been severely undermined in this latest violence. Israeli-Arabs have become just as radicalized as the Palestinians in Gaza and Ramallah. [My personal feeling is that the common Arab is sincere in his desire for peace, but is so imbued with the group psychology of hatred, fomented by extremist leadership and Israel’s necessity to retaliate harshly against terrorism, that most cannot act rationally in today’s hostile climate].
As I outlined in last week’s brief, the international press has distorted the news in the extreme in order to foment the view that all Arabs were victims and that Israelis were the aggressors. But all that prejudicial and devious work was dashed in an instant by the unpredictable Arab radicals who took it upon themselves to beat, brutalize, kill and mutilate the bodies of 3 Israeli solders captured and held for ransom at the Palestinian police headquarters. Worst of all they did it in front of the cameras, for all the world to see. They smashed one journalist’s camera to try and hide the event, which proves they were aware of the advantage slanted news coverage brings. Suddenly there was an event so demonstrably evil and without justification that even the media could not spin it from black to white--though some did try to say it was an act of frustration out of all the tens of Palestinians who had been killed. Wrong: it was an act of pure mobocracy and unthinking thirst for violence. You don’t see the Jews doing the same thing to Arab captives even after their own have been stoned and killed. Of course the media never tells you that almost all the Palestinians killed were armed Palestinians shooting in ambush at Israeli soldiers trying to protect innocent civilians from the rock throwing mobs of radical Palestinians (who the media insists are only “demonstrators”. They only show us the children who were the unfortunate victims of cross fire during the armed engagements. But the fact now remains--the world has had an indelible eye-opening experience that gives evidence of why the Arabs can’t be trusted to treat Jews fairly, and why there will be no peace as long as people like Arafat and Hamas and Islamic Jihad are leaders of a Palestinian state.
George Will, the token “conservative” of Newsweek magazine (who I do not completely trust) wrote an uncharacteristically savvy piece on Israel that is worth repeating in part [my comments italicized in brackets].
“Today Israel has the most accommodating diplomacy in its history, and is in the most perilous position in its history [because of that accommodating diplomacy]. Barak may be the most calamitous leader any democracy has had. He risks forfeiting his nation's existence. Bad leadership during the 1930s caused France to suffer swift defeat and four years of humiliation, but not annihilation. Barak has made territorial concessions no previous government contemplated [and more secret concessions that have not been revealed yet], including the sparsely populated and strategically vital Jordan valley [and the Golan Heights]. He has thrown away long-standing US support for an undivided Jerusalem. Under Barak, Israel's rights in its own capital are negotiable. And what has Barak's policy bought? Only Arafat's promise to reject violence, which is akin to Hitler's promise, after Munich, to make no more territorial claims in Europe.”
IS THIS GOING TO LEAD TO A BROADER WAR?
It very well could, but I don’t think the other Arab countries are ready to take on an Israel still in control of the strategic high ground. As I have pointed out in prior analyses, the NWO’s purpose in controlling Israeli politicians and launching this one-sided “peace process” has been to undermine Israel’s security (moving strategic military bases, and trading “land for peace”) so that Israel would, in the next Arab onslaught, be forced to call upon international help to save themselves from defeat The UN would then eagerly move in, as in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor, with no intentions of leaving. Jerusalem would ultimately become an “international city” of eternal turmoil. It may yet happen, but not in this round.
If the Arab states, in solidarity with Arafat, attack Israel, it is unlikely they could do so with conventional arms alone. With Israel still in possession of the strategic high ground and choke points, the Arabs would have to use the missile forces Russia and China are helping them develop--and those aren’t ready yet. Most Arab leaders despise Arafat as well, so I don’t think they are going let him ruin their long-term plans of attack. Besides, no major war in the Middle East can take place without the participation of Iran and Egypt. The NWO globalists’ “peace” timetable was, until recently, I believe, synchronized to pave the way for a future pan-Arab missile attack on Israel, directed by Russia and China. The NWO would then try to enter the fray (ostensibly on the side of Israel) to take advantage of the war and control the region in the aftermath. But, alas, Arafat has jumped the gun.
So, while I don’t think the Arab states are going to move against Israel now, I do think that Arafat is going to keep fighting and the international community is going to have to conjure up a replacement strategy to regain the upper hand and re-convince the Israeli people that a “peace” is possible with the likes of Arafat. That’s going to be a hard sell. Barak and the Labor Party can’t survive politically except by playing firm with the Arabs (and it will be play-acting, not real), because the Israeli people are fed up with the tactics of accommodation. If the Likud Party refuses to join Barak in a “unity government” (where both opposition parties join forces and trade off turns as the Prime Ministrer), I think Barak would be defeated in the next election. Current polls show his approval rating down to less than 35%. That is why Barak is now upping the ante by inviting Likud to join an “emergency government” hoping to capitalize on the existing state of emergency to keep Labor’s slim hold on power. If Likud’s leader (Ariel Sharon) goes along with Barak, rather than force a new government, it will demonstrate to me that the so-called “right wing” Likud is as much co-opted by the Kissinger NWO team as Barak’s faction is in the Labor Party.
Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an analyst of military and strategic affairs, said, “the unrealistic peace of reconciliation urged by Barak and Shimon Peres is dead, but a peace of separation remains feasible...In such a cold peace, you do hand over territory, if it is not strategically vital and you cannot easily defend it anyway,...you do de-conflict the situation, but you do not take steps to seek goodwill.” He went on: “The Israelis were in danger of believing their own propaganda, and not recognizing the nature of Arafat and the dangers of their situation and their neighborhood. They gave so many hostages to fortune, so many concessions in their search for a peace of reconciliation, which was never really an offer....There is now a political dimension to this in Israel's democracy. People will ask themselves if Ariel Sharon or Bibi [Binyamin] Netanyahu are the kinds of hard-liners who can bring about a peace of separation, now that the dream of a peace of reconciliation has evaporated. Many will think they can, being tough-minded enough to recognize that some of the Israeli settlements are indefensible and have to be abandoned.”
I think Luttwak makes some good points, but what he is suggesting is also very dangerous, especially if endorsed by the Likud as an alternative to Barak’s failed process. The areas he suggests giving up as undefendable refer to all the numerous Jewish settlements interspersed among the Arabs. In reality, they are not that difficult to defend (in this type of fight with the PLO) if allowed to defend themselves. But in the past year the Israel Defense Force (IDF) has begun disarming the settlers. They have taken away their anti-tank weapons and reduced their ammunition supplies to less than 20 minutes of heavy fighting. I think the government is trying to force the settlers into a fatal position that will induce them to leave. Despite government assurances to the contrary, it appears they have already agreed to sell-out these settlers in the next “peace of separation.”
The only real solution for peace is for the Israelis to consolidate the existing land mass of Israel with NO autonomous Palestinian areas, and then implement a fair, free-market system of laws that allow both Israeli-Arabs and Jews to have equal treatment in the law, but under Israeli security control. Israel is the only government with a track record that comes close to protecting both Jews and Arabs (when acting peaceably). But I fear the Israeli government, at the end of this round, will give up all the Jewish settlements in joint-control territory and try to consolidate their position only in areas where Jews are an overwhelming majority. This may sound sensible in the short-term, but, there is a real long-term danger. If you look at a map of those areas that are most likely to be ceded to the Palestinians, you will see that they form a kidney bean shaped territory wrapping around Jerusalem to the south, east and north. If the Israelis allow Arafat to control such an interconnected piece of terrain in the heart of Samaria and Judea it will set the stage for the future strangulation of Jerusalem--which will put Israel right back where the globalists wants them--at their mercy.
OCTOBER 27, 2000
THE ISRAELI CONFLICT--A LONG TERM VIEW
Yassir Arafat, after having all but destroyed the NWO’s carefully crafted plans for an Israeli sellout in the “peace process” by his unauthorized return to the “intifada” of terrorism and violence, ran back into the arms of the global establishment this week pleading for UN intervention. He wants UN troops to occupy (meaning: protect) his Palestinian enclaves from the Israeli military’s increasing impatience with Arafat’s inducements to violence. The UN would love to comply as it would allow them to accomplish the entire objective of their “peace process” (a Kosovo-style occupation of Israel) without having to go through the years of protracted and costly buyouts of Jewish settlements and relocation of military bases. Predictably, the Israelis are refusing to allow UN interference, knowing that the UN has always worked, under the table, for Israeli capitulation. Keep in mind that the Barak government, being totally bought and sold by the NWO controllers in Washington, would love to allow the UN into Israel (and they may yet find a way) but for now they know they could not survive politically if they did so.
The prime reason this current intifada (uprising) has gotten as far as it has is due to the political restraints and “rules of engagement” PM Barak has placed on Israeli police and military actions. Despite all the shooting you see in the press (which is carefully edited to appear as if soldiers are only firing upon rock throwers), the Israeli police and military responses have been permissive in the extreme at the beginning of each conflict. Thus, the deterrent effect has been weak, and Palestinian radicals have responded with increased violence. Only when the heat of Israeli anger at military inaction rises to the point of rebellion against Israel’s Labor Party does Barak give the word to act. This intifada will not end until Israel begins to retaliate with quick and sure force or until Arafat changes color for another phony round of peace talks.
Slowly, the details of purposeful media distortions are leaking out. I discovered this week that the private Italian film crew that published the lynching of the 3 Israeli soldiers in Ramallah (Palestinian controlled town north of Jerusalem) had also filmed Arafat watching the happenings from a balcony, but the Arafat portion was edited out. It also came out this week that the filming of the Palestinians fleeing for their lives just as the Israeli helicopters attacked the Ramallah Police headquarters, in retaliation for the lynchings, had been staged by the British television crew and Arafat. Even though the Israelis gave at least two hours advance notice of the attack to make sure no innocent bystanders were present, the Palestinians forced a small contingent of youth to stay at the headquarters right up till the moment of the attack in order to film them running away. The video crew was a knowing collaborator in a staged event. But the most common form of editing is the filming of angry “demonstrators” throwing rocks followed by a cut in the film--and then Israel soldiers firing rifles. Of course, it’s always a close-up shot so you cannot see who the soldiers are firing at. The impression is given that they are returning fire on the rock throwers. While this does occur at times when a handful of soldiers are outnumbered by a mob intent on another lynching, most firing encounters are aimed at armed Palestinian police who have waited in ambush for Israeli police to arrive, and who persist in taking cover behind civilians while firing on Israeli soldiers, thus increasing the chance of civilian casualties. These are crucial details the American public is never shown.
PALESTINIAN CLAIMS AND LONG-TERM GRIEVANCES
Although the most credible evidence confirms that Arafat’s radicalized Palestinians are responsible for initiating almost every specific act of violence in the current intifada, let me discuss the arguments surrounding Palestinian claims and long-term grievances. Palestinians claim that the land of Israel belongs solely to the Arabs and that the Israeli military is an “occupation force” without legitimacy. They deny any Jewish claims to a national homeland in Israel despite the fact that Jews were driven out millennia ago and Arabs moved in to occupy Jewish lands. On the other hand, the original Canaanites were displaced by force by the children of Israel, so it all depends on how far you go back in history. Both Jews and Arabs have been the object of multiple conquests through the ages, so at present, both peoples have overlapping and conflicting ancestral claims to the same land. I don’t believe the issue can ever be resolved by appealing to ancient claims. There are also Biblical promises by God for a perpetual homeland for the house of Israel (of which the Jews constitute the largest remaining group) in the land of Palestine. But where God makes promises, we must let Him use His own influence in the course of history to produce the desired results. Man has to apply the best form of justice available in any given situation. So, let’s turn to modern history and see where the sword of justice falls
The Arabs occupied the land of Israel for centuries while the dispersed of Israel were scattered throughout western and eastern Europe. In the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century Jews in small numbers began returning voluntarily and buying land from the Arabs. While Arabs lived peaceably with the small minority of Jews in their midst, it was not always a relationship of fairness. Historical accounts of the early Jewish settlers indicate that the Arabs refused to sell any land to Jews except swamps, hardpan, rocky hillsides or land otherwise deemed useless for agriculture--and they sold it at outrages prices. Local Arab law was comprised of tribal and Patriarchal edicts, so there was no way for the Jews to beat the system except to play up to Arab leaders as best they could. Many did so and become good friends with their Arab neighbors, but it was still, in large part, an arbitrary system of justice and not suitable for providing equal justice for two distinct cultures living together.
The relative peace between the two cultures was broken as Arabs and Israeli supported different factions in the two world wars. Even so, a great deal of the blame for the present hostility between the two peoples, must be laid at the feet of the British, the French and their US globalist allies who, in the course of these two wars, proceeded to make conflicting promises to both Jews and Arabs, intending to betray them both in the long-run. Both Jews and Arabs were promised an independent homeland at different times during the existence of the British League of Nations’ “mandate” in Palestine. The promises to the Jews of a homeland (the Balfour Declaration) reached a critical point during and after the holocaust of WWII when Jewish immigration to Palestine increased dramatically. The Jews were now a much more substantial minority among the Arabs that could not be ignored or left to the mercy of Arab hostility. A newly constituted UN could not very well take things back to the original status quo, so with heavy Zionist lobbying to key nations around the world, the UN general assembly finally voted to “solve” the problem by partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab sectors.
Neither the Jews nor the Arabs liked the proposal, but the Jews accepted knowing that full national sovereignty was an inevitable outcome of partition. Sovereignty would be a powerful and essential step in establishing a platform for national self-defense and the requisition of arms. The Palestinian Arabs failed to see the advantage of squaring off diplomatically with Israel as equal sovereign nations and opted to destroy Israel instead. They were beaten by Israel in this War of Independence of 1948, again when Egypt attacked Israel in 1956, and yet again during the famous Six Day War of 1967. The last full conventional armored conflict took place in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israel was caught unprepared in the initial Egyptian onslaught. Israel won in the end, only to be kept from consolidating its victory by American pressure to cut off arms. In each case the Arab nations were the aggressors. In each case Israel won back more territory than they lost. In each of the ensuing peace negotiations the strength of the Israeli victory was always undermined by US globalist leaders who seemed ever eager to make sure Israel stayed alive (to placate the large American Jewish lobby) and yet keep her ever dependent upon US assistance. The game plan has always been to promise Israel a lasting peace with the Arabs if she would only yield up conquered territory. That’s how the Sinai desert got back into Egyptian hands and how the temple mount was given back to the Palestinian Authority. But the promises of “land for peace” have never paid off. The Arabs want it all. Sadly, Israelis have never learned the tough lessons of American duplicity--that even though the US has played the role of Israel’s chief ally, US leaders have sought to keep Israel under the thumb of US and globalist control. For the past twenty-plus years, the Arabs have settled for a war of terrorism against Israel as rather than risk another conventional armored confrontation. It has had a wearing down effect on the Israeli will to resist the hollow promises of “land for peace.” For the present, the Israeli population have been shocked back to reality by the pernicious and widespread Palestinian attacks on innocent civilians.
DECEMBER 3, 2000
THE ABOLITION OF BRITAIN--An object lesson for the US
Britain is just a few short years away from ceasing to exist as an independent sovereign nation. Tony Blair’s Labor Party government is inexorably moving the country toward a complete merger with the European Union one small bureaucratic edict at a time. Without waiting for the promised national referendum on whether to replace the strong British Pound Sterling with the puny Euro, he is pushing ahead with preparations for the changeover and letting it be known among business circles that it is a “fait acomplis.” Most Brits aren’t fully aware of how much sovereignty a nation loses when they no longer control how much currency is printed. All nations inflate their currency as a hidden form of taxation. Once England trades in the Pound for the Euro, all monetary powers will gravitate to the European Central Bank and can never be taken back short of “War of Independence.” Britain is about to become a European colony and feel what its like to be under someone else’s control. How ironic and sad.
Americans ought to be watching carefully, for what is happening in Britain right now is also happening here, only with greater difficulty due to the presence of a much more vocal conservative-Christian right-wing. While there are many similarities between British and American conservatives, there a crucial differences as well. Americans have a revolutionary past. The conservative wing in the US can and does feel very passionate about their constitutional rights and can, therefore, be aroused to action if the government threatens those rights obviously.
In contrast, British conservatives are more polite, and try hard not to appear “out of sorts” about anything. This somewhat detached, polite demeanor is part of their traditional image that must be maintained. However, in the current world situation, these sometime virtues may turn out to be deadly weaknesses. Neither do the Brits have a specific passion for a constitution which clearly restricts government majoritarian powers. Theirs is an unwritten constitution based only on common law and court precedents. Just as good law came about slowly in Britain, it is disappearing in that same slow, almost imperceptible way and British conservatives, for the most part, don’t see what is happening. They are powerless to stop it because, in part, they are too polite to get upset about it. They will someday get upset, but it will be too late--and then they will be encouraged to simply put on that “stiff upper lip,” and enduring it like good stalwart servants of the monarchy--but this time the King won’t be in Westminster Palace, but in Brussels.
Both American and British conservatives have an unfortunate and excessive confidence in the “incorruptibility” of their governments. They believe the lies and half-truths that come forth from officials as they paint a skewed picture of reality that leads only to a unitary, socialist, global conclusion. These conservatives find it almost impossible to believe that their respective governments are, by and large, controlled by dark, conspiratorial forces wedded to a nasty global agenda of world power and control. Interestingly, even as global leaders are more and more coming out in the open and showing their hand, the public still can’t sense the danger; inconvenience, perhaps--but not danger. Of course, colluding media powers always report on the various global pronouncements in euphemistic, positive ways, so as to defuse any perceptions of danger. It seems that only a small minority of citizens are sensitive enough to spiritual warnings--those subtle signals from conscience--to sense real danger. Sadly, polite, optimistic people almost always rationalize away these warning feelings of conscience, choosing rather to believe in illusions of peace and prosperity. Such rationalizations always induce inaction and that fatal wait-and-see hopefulness that is so dangerous in the prelude to war and the rise of global democratic tyranny.
A former British leftist has come out with a new book that attempts to stir British conservatives to more action--to act a little more like their rabble-rousing American cousins. The book is called The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana, by Peter Hitchens (published by Encounter Books in the US). He uses the contrast in the funerals of Churchill and Diana (the former, somber and dignified; and the latter emotional, whimpering) to demonstrate how far the British have sunk into that psychological morass of stupidity that can no longer distinguish between the weightier issues of national sovereignty and superficial liberal causes championed by a naive princess. So far, his warnings have only produced the predictable hysterics from the British left rather than arouse his intended conservative audience. While Hitchens’ book spends most its pages on the loss of moral will to resist social evils in Britain, he does make some cogent comments about the political suicide going on as well. Here are some highlights from his comments while on a speaking touring of America as reported in an excellent review by Robert McCain of the Washington Times:
“Here [in America], there’s a conservative counterculture that hits back....But in Britain, the conservative culture is embattled and sort of complacent.... The left has taken over cultural power largely unnoticed....British conservatives are not united on the cultural and social issues that I discuss in the book.” Without realizing how similar things are in America, he points out how conservatives in Britain lost a lot of ground during Conservative governments (Margaret Thatcher and John Major) due to the politics of compromise. “Many of the worst changes in our education system were made under the Conservative government,” he said, “and some of the worst attacks on the married family were made under the Conservative government, using the tax system to de-privilege marriage.”
While the prospect of Britain abandoning its national sovereignty frightens many British conservatives, they seem powerless to stop it. As in America, where conservative Republicans are in a minority position, the chances of the Conservative party (called Tories in Britain) regaining control in Parliament are “very slim,” according to Hitchens. Because of the huge numbers of British people used to receiving a variety of government benefits, the Conservatives have to put forth their own semi-socialist agenda to gain seats--which undermines their entire philosophical premise and uniqueness. All of this plays into the hands of the Labor Party who can promise more benefits to the people without any pangs of conscience whatsoever.
But here is the crucial and most dangerous issue. While the media continues to play upon the word “democracy” in referring to both British systems and the EU, there is a world of difference current British law and EU legislative procedures and lack of restrictions on government power. There is an even greater distinction between the US system and global democratic tyranny. For example, the EU court system recently has begun to enforce “political correctness” and to limit freedom to publish opinions that are critical of the EU or protected groups like homosexuals. Christian organizations have been especially targeted for censure.
In a disturbing article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard entitled SHADES OF EU JUSTICE--Curtailing Freedom of Speech, he reports that the EU’s lower court, the Court of First Instance, ruled that the “EU has an undefined--and seemingly unlimited--power to restrict political criticism in ‘the general interests of the Communities’.” During a subsequent appeal of this decision to the full Court of Justice, the chief justice, Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer of Spain, began to publicly rant about political “blasphemy.” “As if it could not get any worse,” says Evans-Pritchard, “the lead judge handling the case is Melchior Wathelet, the disgraced Belgian justice minister driven from office for bungling the Dutroux pedophile scandal...Sanity is very far from prevailing.” Hitchens is equally concerned about the legal implications of “political correctness” in an unlimited democracy. “This is why political correctness is not a joke--I always get very irritated when people make fun of it. It’s actually an elaborate system to make certain thoughts unthinkable by first making them unsayable [legally].”
Summing up the great dangers of this so-called EU “democracy,” as Hitchens puts it, “The European Union actually has far more in common with the old USSR than it does with the USA....Its so-called Parliament is much more like the Supreme Soviet [referring to the rubber-stamp Soviet Congress that was under complete Communist domination] than like the US Congress. And its [the EU’s] Council of Minister and the Commission, where power really lies, are not democratically accountable.” He’s absolutely correct. The EU Commission has allotted extra votes to powerful countries like several members like France and Germany, much like the UN granted multiple votes to the Soviet Union nations to make sure it had a higher leverage in voting power than smaller individual states. This is still a critical issue in the EU as it is considering expanding its membership to other nations in Eastern Europe. In a raw democracy, countries with Western traditions of law can easily be outvoted by former Eastern-block nations still harboring vestiges of Soviet-style governments.
The EU Commission really does have the ultimate power, and France, Germany and Italy have veto powers within that body over certain key issues like taxation, social security, immigration and asylum, trade in services, and disbursement of funds to poorer regions. In a socialist system, everything revolves around the power to redistribute other people’s wealth. It is a formula for constant conflict and political corruption. Vetoes, though “undemocratic” are still the last vestiges of sovereignty to protect a productive nation from having its resources stolen and redistributed to other “poor” nations--though no one speaks openly about vetoes as a virtue. In the upcoming EU summit next week in Nice, French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, plans to tackle the issue of “qualified majority voting” on around 30 new issues. Those 30 issues would not include the 5 main sensitive areas of policy subject to the veto power. This tactic of gradual change is how the EU slowly corrupts an individual member nation’s will to resist. They start with the most innocuous issues to get people used to being under EU control in areas that are not too offensive to the majority.
EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO NATIONAL WILL:
Let’s return to the main issue of the loss of will in Britain, and to a lesser extent in America, to resist this onslaught of raw democracy and global structures intent on regulating individual rights and property. Government cannot mandate a change of will (though it can subvert that will) and neither can conservatives of liberty hope to mandate, by government power, a reversal of that will once lost. This is because the will to resist, aside from some people’s innate spiritual sensitivity, is determined, in large part, by the knowlege base individual people have about the threat, as well as an understanding of the proper solution using principles of law that restrict majoritarian tyranny and control. Children simple aren’t getting that in public education, and they never will from now on.
State control of education is primarily responsible for this loss of knowledge and consequent will to resist. In both Britain and America, Fabian socialists sought early on to control what teachers know (by controlling teacher colleges and certification) and what children learn (by control over text book content and by imposing restrictions upon a teacher’s freedom to teach conservative views, citing political correctness). Commenting on Britain, Hitchens notes, “Education was changed because the cultural left saw education as a social engineering project....They wanted to create a classless society in which people were brought up to believe in equality, and it didn’t matter if they couldn’t spell, read write or count--which most of them can’t...It’s failing to teach people to spell, then telling them how good they are.”
Part of the solution to the education problem is to stop trying to “win back control of ‘our’ public schools.” They aren’t “our” schools. They belong to the government. Total control by conservatives of public schools is a battle we can never win, even if we are the majority, because the courts will rule that we can’t impose “our” view on all students since schools are supported by everyone’s tax moneys. The court is, in fact, absolutely correct, but it acts hypocritically in allowing only one side (the left) to use that argument. Conservatives can’t get the courts to stop the schools from teaching atheism, homosexuality or evolution as fact, as a violation of our tax dollars, since these views are considered “non-ideological and nonpartisan” which is absolute hogwash. The whole issue revolves around the monopoly on tax moneys that public schools hold. The only real solution is to break that monopoly and require that public schools are only legitimate if they are supported 100% by user fees--just like private schools. Then such issues as prayer in school, evolution, and sex education will no longer be matters of contention. Everyone simply takes their money to the school that teaches and disciplines students in the manner they desire. If none exist matching a group’s criteria, new schools will be formed to fill the need.
Why is this so hard to achieve, politically?
1. Historically, once corrupted by a public benefit, voters will never relinquish that power voluntarily--even if they know its wrong. That’s the sad truth about human behavior. Even most conservatives are corrupted by the benefits of public schools--they like the big fancy buildings, the sports program and the social interaction (which often has negative consequences). All users of public schools are enticed by the hidden benefit whereby the high cost of public education is spread around to all taxpayers, lessening their portion of the total bill. That’s an illegal subsidy and is a violation of the rights of those who don’t participate in public education. The old argument that there is a “general” public benefit for having an educated public is simply not true anymore, given the corrupting influence of public schools on behavior and its failure to teach the essential values of liberty necessary to preserving the constitution. Even if it were true, you can’t start charging the entire taxpaying public for ethereal indirect “benefits.” There are indirect benefits to almost every honest private endeavor, but you can’t allow people to start charging the taxpayers for such intangibles. Besides, the users of public education are receiving a very substantial direct benefit and should pay for the full cost.
2. Conservatives are held hostage by the argument about “the poor”--that the poor wouldn’t be able to afford to pay for schooling. This is the eternal excuse used to justify tax support for public schools. It isn’t valid but the counterarguments are complex and few have the patience to learn them.
3. Parents don’t really want to accept the responsibility for the education of their children. Schools have become the most prevalent form of day-care in the world, and most parents are too lazy to get off that dole. Going back to real school choice (not the phony choice of vouchers or public funding and control of private schools) requires real effort and parental involvement. It’s far cheaper in the long-term, but most people can never be convinced of that since most of public school costs are hidden in a variety of different taxes.
This is a long shot, but there is no other solution than to start converting good people on the public school dole to believe in the doctrine of complete “separation of school and state.” You can start by encouraging people to consider home schooling--the most economical form of private schooling. Its big disadvantage is the time commitment required from one or both parents. Still, it’s the fastest growing sector of private education in the US. By the way, there is a real hole in the market for cooperative home-school systems that either share teaching loads among different parents on different days on an organized basis, or that have some type of joint facility for getting homeschoolers together once a week for specialized group classes, scholastic or sports competitions and testing. As more conservatives get out of the public system, they will feel the pain of paying “twice” for education and be motivated to push for putting the public school system on the same financial footing as private schools (100% user fees). So, resist the urge to get active in your local public schools. You only prolong real change by trying to improve an inherently corrupt institution that will never be properly reformed. The sooner we allow public schools to fail, the sooner
DECEMBER 8, 2000
LATIN AMERICA--FAILED POLICIES LEAD TO A PERMANENT MASS EXODUS
I have a son living in Spain who reports that the percentage of Latin American economic refugees is growing dramatically in Europe--and not just from Argentina and Uruguay, the two most European-like countries in South America (SA). Unlike the rest of SA, which is dominated by Indians or mixed racial types, the majority of citizens in Argentina and Uruguay are direct descendants of Spanish, Italian and German immigrants. However, it isn’t family ties that is driving the influx of South Americans to Spain and other Latin-based language nations, but rather, economic and political discouragement. Economic refugees are streaming out of Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Columbia, Paraguay, Venezuela, and to a lesser extent Chile and Brazil. Ecuadorians have become the primary agricultural labor pool in southern Spain. What happened to the much-touted free-market revolution in Latin America?
ANALYSIS: Latin America had its chance to turn toward liberty, embraced it only part-way, and now is slipping back into the crucible of Marxist/socialist class struggle. The problem lies in its leaders attempt to take on the most lucrative portions of Milton Friedman-styled “monetarist” economics without removing the core elements of the welfare state--fiat money, employment safety nets, “free” public education and semi-privatized social security systems. Chile made the most reforms and has survived the longest, but is now in moderate decline as the call for welfare benefits by the electorate keeps driving politicians to promise more, choking future free-market potential. Argentina, along with its smaller partner Uruguay, used to be the power-house agro-economy of SA, the former ranking 7th in the world until the mid-1930s. But after succumbing to a love-affair with full-blown socialism in the 1930’s both countries became stagnant, inflationary welfare states. Argentina tried half-heartedly to implement several privatization plans during the 1990s, like Chile, but without freeing up the business sector from union demands and government mandated employee taxes. Not enough jobs were created and the free-market now has a blackened reputation among the masses--a perfect recipe for Marxist resurgence. Marxists in both Argentina and Uruguay have always dominated intellectual life. Using university basements as sanctuaries (the police cannot enter autonomous public universities in Latin America) leftist revolutionaries in the 1960s and 70s actively engaged in terrorist activities until the military finally stepped in to eliminate them with extra-legal, but effective means. For the last 30 years Marxists have kept a lower profile, but are still there in large numbers.
Portuguese-speaking Brazil has the largest land area of all SA countries (occupying almost half of the continent). After WWII Brazil began to dominate the SA economic scene as well. They overtook the Argentine/Uruguay economic block by lowering many of the insanely high import tariffs common to Latin America. Capital investment immediately began to flow into Brazil. Brazil had as much or more socialist weight dragging down the economy as Argentina and Uruguay, but in those early years the impact of lower tariffs helped markets grow despite the social burden. In contrast, in Uruguay and Argentina in the late 1960s it wasn’t uncommon to pay 100% duties for the importation of an automobile or other durable goods. These high tariffs had such a dampening effect on the economy that the government was forced to inflate the currency at over 500% per annum and more. Brazil was also inflating to feed its welfare state, but the economy was experiencing real growth in industrial and service sectors. Brazil imported technology from Europe and turned to manufacturing automobiles and appliances, which quickly dominated the SA markets. Now the growth formula isn’t working as well for Brazil. The social and regulatory burden is finally beginning to threaten the engines of production. Sadly, socialism is far too entrenched now for Brazil to make serious free-market reforms and survive at the ballot box. Brazil is nearly always operating at the brink of debt, social welfare bankruptcy and perennial political crises.
Brazil is surviving, in part, by having created a regional common market, MERCOSUR (initially with rival Argentina and then later adding Uruguay and Paraguay) to enhance the sale of Brazilian goods and defuse the tariff battles with its neighbors. So far, it is a true common market and doesn’t require any nation to yield essential sovereignty. Each country can withdraw at will. Its major drawback is that it requires member nations to maintain a high 13% tariff wall around their economic dealings with non-Mercosur nations. This is intended to be an inducement for neighboring countries to join, but it is a powerful disincentive for exporting countries like Chile which already trade heavily with the rest of the world at much lower tariff rates. Joining Mercosur would force Chile to raise tariffs with all its other trading partners, like the US--not a smart thing to do. It is currently trying to convince Mercosur to drop that tariff wall.
The nations of Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia and Paraguay have a much lower level of entrepreneurial strength due to the predominance of uneducated campesinos which only possess basic economic motivations. Large campesino classes are extremely susceptible to the politics of envy promoted by Marxist revolutionaries in Latin America. As a result, each of the four Andean nations have large concentrations of Marxist guerrilla forces who have now joined up with the certain drug cartels to fund their revolutions.
The much heralded $1.3 billion military assistance package for Colombia to help in its drug war is not what it is purported to be. In reality, it is a cover for the CIA’s surrogate war to shut down the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) drug cartels that are competing with CIA directed cartels, as I have documented in prior briefings. The resulting skirmishes have led to political instability and have undermined Colombia’s regional economies. There is no end in site. Guerrilla kidnappings and shake-down crimes of extortion are also rampant in Colombia and spilling over into Panama. There are growing comparisons being made between the new Colombian war and the Vietnam war. I don’t think this war won’t escalate that far, but America’s image in Latin America among the vulnerable campesinos will increasingly become synonymous with “aggressor.”
In every major SA city you will find long lines of people, stretching for blocks around various embassies as South Americans desperately seek a way out. The lines are longest in Ecuador. Most applicants are turned away from the US embassy--thus, they go elsewhere, like Spain. Ecuador is a basket case, economically. Jobs are few and menial, and inflation is high. Even the controversial move to change over to a dollar-denominated national currency has not solved the basic problems. The US promotes this solution, in part, to help create international dollar outlets to mask the amount of money creation going on here (which lessens, for the moment, inflationary pressures). But the main reason for “dollarization” is to prepare a future inducement for Latin American nations to become drawn into an expanded version of NAFTA-style regional government. While dollarization has enforced dramatic monetary restrictions upon the government’s ability to create money, without reducing government spending on social programs, it has led to a more rapid government insolvency. For SA leaders it’s a “catch-22” situation. To a “social-democracy” facing depression, any attempt to eliminate social programs is political suicide. So politicians keep promising benefits they can’t deliver while countries like Ecuador is spiraling into a death trap that only invites Marxist revolutionaries to come to the “rescue.”
Peru is suffering under an all-too-common case of US-induced destabilization--with the help of CIA “black operations.” Peru was on the mend economically under President Alberto Fujimori (of Japanese descent) until he began to act too aggressively against Peru’s “Shining Path” Marxist guerrillas. He refused to negotiate with them in Peru’s famous hostage crisis several years ago, and eventually ordered the building stormed by elite troops--ending the standoff--with all guerrillas dead, including their top leader. Nothing brings out leftist-sympathizers in the Organization of American States (OAS) or the US State Department like a call for “help” from a leftist revolutionary organization threatened with extinction. Fujimori was targeted for defeat in this year’s election as I covered in a previous brief. The OAS and Madeleine Albright’s State Department made extraordinary demands on Fujimori to allow his leftist opposition free publicity prior to the election. When Fujimori won handily, despite US pressure, the OAS cried foul and the State Department called the results fraudulent.
What the American public never sees (because of government and media cover-ups) are the secret orders that go out to the CIA to apply their dirty tricks to a targeted regime. In Fujimori’s case, his weak point was his security chief, Vladimiro Montesinos. Early on, when Fujimori was fully cooperating with US demands, Montesinos was given secret assistance by the CIA to set up elaborate surveillance capabilities to help Fujimori maintain power over his opposition. Bribery and payoffs of opposition leaders is common in SA. When Fujimori fell out of grace, the CIA used its own surveillance system to turn the tables on Montesinos, showing him in the act of making a payoff to another Peruvian legislative leader. With predictable media outrage, that’s all it took to bring down Fujimori’s government. Fujimori said he would step down, but tried to protect his faithful cadre of anti-Communist military leaders by proposing a trade--amnesty for the military, for new elections. No deal. The left smelled blood and knew the US was on their side and would deliver the victims without compromise. Fujimori fled to Japan for safety.
Politically, all the nations of Latin America have swung back to the left. On the extreme Left is President Chavez of Venezuela, an openly avowed Marxist and ally of Fidel Castro. Most other regimes are so-called Center-Left coalitions, but nevertheless, very dangerous to liberty. The inevitable result of a Leftist political victory after a period of anti-Communism is revenge. The Left never forgets an enemy, even when down and out, or old and feeble. Chile’s aging General Pinochet is set to go to trial for eradicating, without trial, a few dozen terrorists and will probably be convicted. Retired generals and other field-grade officers in Argentina and Uruguay, who successfully rooted out the dreaded Tupamaro guerrillas, are being put on trial as well. Virtually every nation that was successful in decapitating Marxist terrorists and guerrillas by military and police action (bypassing the Marxist courts, who systematically protected terrorists and collaborators alike) is being set up for show trials on “human rights” charges. Never mind that these military men saved hundreds of innocent lives from the rash of murders and kidnappings for ransom, instigated by these terrorists. The world-wide Left is calling for blood. It’s the closest thing to the guillotines of the French Revolution I have seen in recent times.
DECEMBER 22, 2000
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE TALKS BACK ON TRACK--WORSE THAN BEFORE
Despite the continuing daily attacks upon Israeli civilians by Palestinians (mostly drive-by shootings at Israeli commuters in cars and buses), the Barak government, in collusion with the Clinton administration, seems hell-bent on getting the “peace” process back on track. There is a desperate reason for this “rush to peace” and it doesn’t have anything to do with peace. In the short term, it is all about salvaging the political life and reputation of the Barak Labor government in Israel--the most corrupt, NWO connected regime in Israeli history. In the longer term, there is a NWO objective to remove Israel as one of the last bastions of national sovereignty, opposing globalist control. The so-called “peace process” has always had as its major objective to weaken Israel militarily through a series of “land for peace” compromises. These agreements will force Israel off the strategic high grounds and set the stage for a future full scale pan-Arab attack on Israel that is meant to end in a stalemate presided over by UN occupation forces--only in Israel, naturally.
Let’s look at the short-term political objective first. Despite Israel’s suicidal offering of over 95% of what the Palestinians demand, Arafat got greedy, rejected the peace deal and opened the spigot of terrorism and violence. In one fell swoop, the propagandized, half-asleep, left-leaning Israeli population started to wake up and realize that the “peace process” is a sham, that Arafat has no sincere intentions of ever giving Jews any peace--no matter how high the concessions. The “peace now” movement buckled and Barak’s popularity plummeted to below 30%. Under normal, non-manipulated circumstances, the Barak government would been subject to a vote of no-confidence, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) would have been dissolved and new elections called for. The failed Labor party agenda would have been repudiated at the polls.
But things aren’t that clear and simple anymore. Corruption is rampant among most of the smaller left- and right-wing parties in the Knesset, as is typical in parliamentary systems where multi-party coalition governments are the rule rather than the exception. No medium-sized minority party can rule without the help of other smaller parties, so secret deals and pay-offs are the price everyone pays to govern. The key political party that makes or breaks the current Barak coalition is the Shas Party--the third largest party with approx. 17 members; a bastion of the Moroccan “right-wing, orthodox Jewish” political wing that should be opposing, on principle, everything Barak does. Instead Shas keeps making secret deals with Barak to keep him in power. Barak’s government, in turn, keeps funding Shas’ religious schools and making secret pay-offs to (and then blackmailing) their leaders. Former Shas party leader Aryeh Deri is currently serving a stint in prison on corruption charges. Shas’ current rabbinical leadership (Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef ) keeps holding mass rallies and vigils outside the prison to keep up the illusion among Shas supporters that Deri has been unjustly imprisoned. In reality, Deri was convicted on only a minor portion of the charges he was actually guilty of. All the serious charges were covered up in the investigations so as to allow the opportunity for Deri to make a come-back in the future--and and also to obscure the corruption links that lead back to Barak and Peres, and their respective US and European globalist supporters. A great short book tracing these and other corruption issues in Israeli politics is the new edition of Barry Chamish’s work, The Last Days of Israel. Chamish is Israel’s top investigative reporter. Highly recommended. You can order it toll-free from the Zionist Book Club, 1-877-722-4699
In October, Shas withheld its support for a motion of no-confidence, and refused to call for new elections. It made a deal with Barak allowing him another month of grace time to try to bring Arafat back to the table with more secret concessions. A “call off your dogs” agreement was made with Arafat in Egypt but Arafat failed to follow through and violence escalated. The Jewish people become more disgusted with Barak’s weak response to the new uprising (Intifada). When the grace period passed, Shas still refused to shut down the Barak government and instead, gave Barak more time to maneuver. Clinton failed in his attempt at arranging another peace conference, but he sent Dennis Ross and other US State Department hacks to descend upon both parties in Israel, twisting arms and trying to get Arafat to yield a little. Nothing doing--he wants it all, and probably has the assurances of the world powers that he can get it if he plays along.
The Palestinian attacks upon innocent Jewish civilians continue. The Israeli army, trying to placate the hostile international press, only reacts to the violence rather than intervene effectively to cut off the leadership sources of the violence. The result is more Palestinian deaths and more bad press. The Israeli defense forces (IDF) continue to operate under “hands tied” restraint. As Arutz-7 reported, “Throughout the clash with the Palestinians, the IDF has proposed steps aimed directly at senior PA officials, such as retracting the VIP cards of the heads of the security agencies, Muhammad Dahlan and Tawfiq Tirawi, whose officers were involved in terrorist attacks. These proposals were not approved... In practice, most of the sanctions have disintegrated or been lifted: the supply of construction material for PA use was resumed and gasoline was allowed to be brought in. The Karni crossing is open, as is the airport in Rafiah and the border crossing to Egypt. The export of goods from Gaza is resuming... Israel also recanted its decision to withhold funds from the Palestinian Authority.” Thus we see that the Barak government refuses, almost unilaterally, to allow the IDF to take out the terrorists, confiscate their weapons, or even cut off their flow of ammunition and funds provided by the Israel government itself.
In a coldly calculated political move Barak resigned and called for new elections (only for Prime Minister) to be held on Feb. 6, 2001. He is not reacting to popular demand. He chose the resignation route because it does not dissolve the Knesset and because current law doesn’t allow non-Knesset members to run for president. Thus, Barak’s most formidable opponent, Likud’s Benyamin Netanyahu, is prohibited from running for president since he is not a sitting member of the Knesset. Even if he could run, without parliamentary elections the present leftist coalition would hold their seats and effectively stymie any right-wing prime minister from passing any legislation since he wouldn’t have a parliamentary majority in the Knesset. In round two, the Likud Party tried to get Shas to go along with a motion to dissolve parliament and also to pass a bill to allow non-members of the Knesset to run for president (appropriately called the Netanyahu Bill). The Netanyahu bill passes, but once again, Shas intervened and voted against the bill to dissolve parliament, thus guaranteeing a continuation of the leftist rule in the Knesset. This party is clearly co-opted.
Netanyahu rightly concluded that he can’t run for PM under those conditions since he knows that he would achieve nothing and yet get blamed for the government’s failure to respond effectively to the violence--even though that inaction would mostly be the fault of a left-wing controlled Knesset. This leaves the current Likud leader Ariel Sharon as the only candidate left to run against Barak. Far left-wing former prime minister Shimon Peres (who runs the more radical side of the Labor Party) has been talked out of running against Barak so as not to split the left-wing “peace now” movement (composed of the Labor party and all others to the left). The left knows better than to allow anyone to split their votes.
Sharon is not a true right-wing alternative to Labor. He is a mixed bag of philosophies and a sellout artist in his own right. Sharon is also best friends with Shimon Peres, which is telling. His recent meeting with right-wing competitor Rabbi Yitzchak Levy of the National Religious Party hints at the kind of politician Sharon is. As reported by Arutz-7, Levy has decided to not challenge Sharon in the upcoming Prime Minister election. It had been thought that a challenge by Levy would force Sharon to take more right-wing positions (though such strategies never yield permanent results for the right). Predictably it is Levy that was pacified--not Sharon. Rabbi Levy told Arutz-7 that his meeting with Sharon "assured me that we would pretty well be able to identify with his positions." Rabbi Levy said that his purpose in the meeting was to clarify with Sharon three chief issues:
1) ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS: Sharon promised Levy that his guidelines stipulate that not one community in Yesha (referring to the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, slated to be handed over to the Palestinians) would be “hurt.” That’s a slick use of words. Notice he didn’t say they wouldn’t be abandoned. Virtually every Israeli leader has promised to not give up Jewish settlement blocks at one time or another, and they all have betrayed those promises. Levy is naive, indulging in wishful thinking. It is interesting how people on the right, always being dispossessed of real political power (since the media will never countenance any true, hard-line leader as a legitimate candidate for office) will always be tempted to believe that the compromising head of the mainstream conservative party will be true to his words. It never happens--never!
2) THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL: The second point that Levy wanted to hear from Sharon was his position on Israel as a “Jewish democratic state.” This is a big issue with orthodox Jewish political parties. They want the Jewish religion to have official state status and each Jewish faction to have access to taxpayer funds. Sharon promised to give the Jewish aspect of the state its “proper weight”--another slippery use of words.
3) THE THREAT OF POWER SHARING: Finally, Levy was very concerned about the danger of Likud entering into a “national unity government” with Labor (a euphemism for power sharing compromises that only favor the left). Levy found out that Sharon had already made a contingency promise to Barak offering him the Defense Ministry portfolio in any future unity government (a dangerous concession given Barak’s mishandling of the current Intifada). Again Sharon promised Levy that “he would adhere to his own principles in forming such a government..." (another vague generality).
When asked whether he trusts Sharon to follow through on his promises, Rabbi Levy answered, "I am not naive, and I know that there are often differences between what is said before elections and what happens afterwards. But first of all I believe that the word of a Prime Ministerial candidate has value, and secondly -- to clash publicly with Sharon based only on the claim that he is a liar is not something that I would want to do.” Interesting. No matter how many times a politician on the right goes back on his word, it is politically incorrect to distrust him for future action or to call him a liar. As long as conservatives are this hungry to believe in illusions of hope, there is little chance of awakening them to the realities of betrayal....until it is too late. Sharon has a hard-line military reputation, which makes him alluring to Jewish civilians (who desperately long for protection) but it also makes Sharon vulnerable in the media--they always paint him as a radical hawk who will only make things worse by stirring up Palestinian fears. Of course, Sharon (if he gains office) will predictably react to this criticism by bending over backwards to prove the media wrong and making deep compromises in security to show his “moderation.” Polls show Sharon leading Barak by only 3-4 points, and if Barak is capable of pulling off one last peace agreement, he may be able to sway those last border-line votes and get reelected. That’s what the current round of “peace talks” at Bolling AFB near Washington are all about--not forgetting Clinton’s desperate globalist agenda as well.
Here is what the latest leaks reveal about movement in the Israeli negotiating position at these ongoing talks.
Full recognition of a large Palestinian state, which will become a fully armed camp with autonomous powers to import weapons, ready to attack when the rest of the Arab nations finish their preparations for war. Once a Palestinian state is declared in and among the Jewish state, it will be impossible to regain control again short of a major all-out war.
95% of Judea and Samaria, all of Gaza, and thousands of square kilometers in Halutza (southeast of Gaza) in exchange for settlement blocs in Shomron, Gush Etzion, and around Jerusalem. This means giving up the entire settlement enterprise of Judea and Samaria. Barak promised before that the settlements of Beit El or Ofrah would never be given up, but who is going to hold his feet to the fire, with Shas protecting him in the Knesset. Giving away 95% of Yesha (Judea and Samaria) means that communities such as Eli, Shilo, Ofrah, Beit El will not be able to exist. These communities will be surrounded by hostile Palestinians.
Barak is prepared to give away the entire old city of Jerusalem - excluding the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter, but including the Temple Mount.
Total control of the entire Temple Mount to the Palestinians, which will cut off Jews from the holiest site in Judaism--the object of 2,000 years of intense prayer. Access even to the Wailing Wall, the only portion remaining of the original temple foundation, will cease due to lack of Israel security on the mount above. Palestinians have been throwing stones down upon Jewish worshippers at the Wall during the Intifada.
On the refugees issue, Israel is prepared to increase the offer from accepting 100,000 back into Israel to accepting an unspecified much higher number. This will lead to a further dilution of right wing and Jewish votes in the Knesset, making it almost impossible to overturn this leftist agenda, politically, or peacefully.
Likud MK Ruby Rivlin said today that Prime Minister Barak "is guided by his own personal interests of political survival, and he is going and selling everything we have." Rivlin was asked, "Don't you appreciate Barak's promise not to finalize any agreement before the public approves it?" - a reference to the upcoming Prime Ministerial election that Barak has said would be seen as a "referendum" on any agreement that he reaches. Rivlin said, no, he does not appreciate it: "During the election campaign, they [the government] will scare us and threaten us about how badly the world will condemn us as war-mongers and the like if we turn down a signed peace agreement..."
1. OLMERT REALIZES MISTAKE... Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert - a Likud member who said during the previous elections that he had "no doubt that Ehud Barak is dedicated to the integrity of Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, and that he would never allow the city to be divided" - strongly attacked the concessions being made now in Washington. Olmert said that what is going on there is a "close-out sale," and that Barak is "reneging on all his promises from the election campaign regarding Jerusalem and the pre-1967 borders, and he therefore has no authority to sign a withdrawal agreement before the coming elections." Olmert was apparently misled by Barak's statements during last year's election campaign. At the time, Barak criticized those who accused him of planning to divide Jerusalem: "Israel is united around the united Jerusalem, and no one can divide the nation on this matter," and promised the nation that "Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, period!"
In summary, Barak has embarked upon a classic Clintonesque tactic--take his nation to the brink of military disaster to salvage his career and the globalist agenda he serves. He is proposing an almost total sellout of the Israeli position as if it were the only solution to peace--thus, forcing the people to accept an even worse “peace” deal than what was offered before at Camp David. Now, I think it becomes obvious why the Barak government has not used effective measures to shut down the Palestinian terrorist. Continual low-intensity warfare is being used to prod the Israeli people into being susceptible to compromise. The “peace process” is always labeled and presented as the “only” viable solution. Israeli IDF military action is almost always a minimal and ineffective response so as to discourage anyone from believing in a military solution--shades of the American leadership’s sabotage of the Vietnam War.
Without a military solution (removing the terrorist leadership within the Palestinian Authority) there can never be a peaceful resolution of the legitimate desires of non-violent Jews and Palestinians. How can Israel give the Palestinian minority full rights and full mobility within the nation when Israeli-Arabs harbor terrorists in their midst and elect them as leaders? The longer Israel puts off the necessary eradication of terrorism and terrorist leaders, the more hatred will grow. Israeli leaders, I believe, are purposely evading the proper solution in order to enforce a global “final solution” upon Jews and Arabs alike.
Sadly there will be no “peace on earth” in the “Holy Land” this year, or in years to come. That Israel will barely survive, (through the intervention of God) I am confident, but the minority of innocent Jews and Arabs that are rational and open to truth will continue to suffer death and destruction due to the deadly compromises of corrupt politicians on both sides of the political spectrum--politicians who are upheld by a sizable majority of ignorant people, incessantly manipulated by the propaganda and deception of the media powers. I wish I could say that Israelis, Arabs, or even Americans could be excused in their ignorance, having been denied a lot of critical information in the news. But there is also a divine source of truth, ever-present, giving out a broad spectrum of spiritual warnings to the world whaich most of the world doesn’t want to hear. The world is wont to indulge in illusions of peace and prosperity--and in the end, they will have neither.
DECEMBER 29, 2000
ONE MORE REPRIEVE FOR ISRAEL
In yet another miracle of Arab intransigence, this latest, and perhaps last, effort by Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak to shove another disastrous “peace deal” down Israel’s throat has been scuttled. On Thursday, Egypt formally canceled the peace summit it was to host at Sharm Al-Sheikh. The sticking point was over the perpetual refugee problem--the so-called “right of return.” In order to help Barak sell his people on the “unthinkable” (giving up sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the temple mount, giving Arafat terrorist state nation status, and ceding 95% of the occupied territories in the heart of Israel), Clinton’s team pushed Arafat to give ground on the remaining sore point--the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees. Some early leaks indicated that the US simply asked Arafat to defer this issue till some future round of talks, but others insist the US demanded Arafat cede this “right of return” outright, providing the international community compensates the Palestinians monetarily, a figure estimated to be anywhere from $10 to $40 billion. This compensation money would be routed through the Palestinian Authority which would, undoubtedly, take out a substantial percentage for “administrative costs.” Naturally, the US taxpayer would have to ante up a large portion of these funds. How’s that for a “legacy” to drop into the lap of the incoming Bush administration?
Arafat balked at the offer. He knows his radical core supporters would never cede the “right of return.” It forms the second leg of the overall Arab strategy to destroy the nation of Israel. If the future military assault on Israel fails, they intend to use international pressure to force the return of millions of “refugees” to Israel in order to overwhelm Israel politically with pro-Arab voters. The entire international community has kept about a third of the 3.5 million Palestinian refugees penned up in refugee (prison) camps for two generations just to make sure this issue keeps festering. So, this is somewhat of a contrived problem that powerful forces don’t want resolved.
Let’s take a look at the specifics of the refugee problem. Originally, there were about 750,000 refugees. Now, several generations later, this number has grown through birth to about 3.5 million--at least that is the number that are registered on UN relief roles. This is, in fact, a giant, bloated welfare scheme. Registered refugees get 10 years free health care, basic food allowances and 10 years free schooling, at international expense. The US contributes about $75 million annually to this $300 million welfare and anti-Israel, anti-America propaganda system. Other European socialist countries pay the rest. The oil producing nations used to pay a large share, but stopped participating when the Palestinians came out in support of Iraq during the Gulf War. Gee, why can’t we stop paying for the same reason? The Palestinians have always been led by pro-Soviet leaders hostile to American interests.
According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) there are 1.5 million refugees in Jordan, 545,000 in West Bank and 800,000 in Gaza. The rest are primarily scattered in Lebanon (360,000) and Syria (355,000). There are about 100,000 others spread out in ghettos (not camps) in other Arab countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Only a third of Palestinian refugees live in refugee camps. Most of the Palestinians haven’t been refugees for years, but are still counting as “dispossessed” because their fore-fathers fled their properties during the four previous wars. These non-camp refugees show up to collect their benefits from time to time, but are otherwise more or less integrated into the various depressed Arab economies surrounding Israel. During the pre-Gulf War oil boom, many Palestinian refugees (second and third generation) found work in the oil fields. However, a lot of those jobs are going to other less problematic immigrants nowadays. The Palestinian labor ghettos have always had the reputation of harboring terrorists and other threats to their host nations, and have thus become unwelcome.
While many have tried to compare the Palestinians’ demands for fair and just compensation to the Jews’ demands after the holocaust of WWII, the comparison is not always accurate. First, the Jews were victims of Nazi aggression. But in Israel the international community and Arabs themselves have been the aggressors against the Jews. Palestinians had some of their lands allocated to the new state of Israel (without their consent) by the UN partition of Palestine, and lost the rest in the four successive wars of aggression when Arab nations attacked Israel. So the innocent party claim doesn’t stand, at least for the Arab leadership.
As to the innocent peoples claim, it must be remembered that with the possible exception of two Israeli terrorist operations, the Arabs left their lands voluntarily because their own Arab leaders demanded or requested they leave. In the 1948 War of Independence, the main branch of the Israeli Army tried to get the Palestinians to stay and remain neutral, promising they would not be harmed. In response, radical Arab leaders assassinated pro-Israel Arab village leaders and in other ways harassed and intimidated the innocent Arabs into compliance with their “annihilate the Jews” agenda. Arab leaders also openly promised their followers that if they would evacuate during the war, they could come back and take possession of all the Jewish lands when the war was over. There was obviously no expectation of compensating the Jews in this greedy plan! There is, therefore, some blame to be assumed by the majority of Palestinians who did not have to flee, but chose to do so--either out of fear or greed over the expected favorable outcome of the war. Lastly, the issue of determining honest compensation is now complicated by the “improved property” issue. The relatively raw lands, originally abandoned by the Arabs, have now become productive property. If the land is to be returned, or paid for how does one give equitable compensation to the Jewish settlers who invested so much of their time and money into the property?
In summary, war never leaves open completely equitable solutions. No nation emerges from war with sufficient funds to pay for all the damage done to innocent parties. That isn’t to say that justice shouldn’t be done, and compensation meted out where possible. But to be fair, it must be done within a few years of the return of peace--not 50 years later when the land use has changed, all the principals are dead and no witnesses remain. In any case, it is clear that what the international community is looking for is NOT fairness NOR what’s best for the refugees. Given what we know now about the inability of Jew and Arab to live together peacefully, under the influence of corrupt leaders on both sides, it would have been much wiser to have allowed the refugees to blend into the Arab host countries they fled to. The Middle East is never going to have lasting peace under the current radical Arab leadership, intent on annihilating the Jewish state. Even though it is possible to design a free market, constitutionally-limited system of majority rule that would protect the fundamental rights of both Jews and Arabs living in Israel, it is obvious that the Jewish and Arab propensity for socialism would never accept such an alternative. Even if Israel did, it would have to maintain, by force, military hegemony over the entire land since the pro-socialist mentality of the opposition parties (both Arabs and liberal Jews) would surely undo all those protections if they achieved a political majority--which always happens eventually.
From a tactical standpoint, Arafat was a fool not to accept the Clinton administration “peace” deal. The globalist gameplan plays right along with Arafat’s ultimate goal of a weakened and vulnerable Israel. The “peace” process is merely a ploy get Israel to yield up the strategic, defensible terrain so that the Palestinians can build an autonomous military entity in and among the shrunken and cut-up Jewish nation. The current “peace proposal” does all of that. But perhaps Arafat is beginning to realize that even though he and his globalist masters coincide on intermediate goals, in the end the global leaders will cast aside the Arab’s aspirations and continue to keep the Palestinians under their thumb--as they did under the British and the French. --Not that Arafat cares for his people. His present habit of putting Palestinian children in harm’s way to provoke the Israelis proves he doesn’t mind using his own people as cannon fodder too--but at least they serve “his” purposes--not theirs. Whatever his motives, Israelis who want real liberty now have a little more breathing room to try to forge a new political coalition that won’t be a party to the current “peace process.” I wouldn’t trust the Likud Party anymore than I would trust the newly elected Bush administration in the US to do the right thing. Both of these so-called conservative political forces work for the other side. A phony opposition is vastly more dangerous to liberty than an open, obvious threat. It can induce compromise and a sense of “all is well in Zion” far better than any other form of evil. Next week I will cover this “wolf in sheep’s clothing” deception in more detail as I analyze the incoming Bush team. The present level of violence will either have to escalate or die down in the short-term, but I suspect it will rise and fall periodically on into the future until the surrounding Arab countries are ready to launch the first of their new high tech military strikes on Israel--a war of medium range missile attacks with a variety of conventional, biological and chemical warheads--courtesy of the Russians and Chinese, with US collaboration and consent (see below).
Let’s look at the 4 wars of Arab aggression and assess the results. First, the Palestinians themselves are to blame for not having a Palestinian state. They had the same opportunity the Jews had to accept the UN’s partition of Palestine and become a sovereign state and didn’t take it. Second, when you have aggressed against a nation four times, and lost, you can’t keep claiming they are carrying on an unjust occupation. When one side in a conflict demonstrates multiple times that they are intent on annihilating the other side, the defending party has the right to maintain full military hegemony in their area. Palestinian attacks upon innocent civilians continue to disqualify them from being granted nationhood in the midst of Israel. It isn’t simply a matter of wanting your own “Arab identity” or “national pride” that justifies having your own nation. The group has to demonstrate that they will respect the sovereign rights of others before others will allow them to become an armed independent nation. Allowing Arafat to have a sovereign state would permit him to become an armed terrorist state and any future attempts by Israel to restrict the importation of arms for Arafat’s terrorist state would be condemned by the world as a violation of Palestinian sovereignty.
As for police and military heavy-handedness, this is many times true, and partly justifiable, in my opinion. When Palestinians knowingly elect terrorists as their leaders and harbor terrorists in their midst, they must suffer the consequences. Arab travel to Jewish areas is often cut off during a wave of terrorist activity. Arab vehicles are subject to search, and innocent people are scrutinized. Unfortunately, there is no fair way to distinguish between terrorists and Arab civilians when attackers wear no uniforms. Israeli soldiers can’t be expected to give Arabs the benefit of the doubt when it a matter of life and death. As for the charges of Israeli torture, I cannot confirm them one way or another--it’s obviously not public information--but I do suspect that some of the reports are true. The Israeli government has its share of corruption and evil. However, as in almost all cases where Amnesty International comes forth with a flood of similar charges against pro-Western military governments, they fail to tell people that those incarcerated or those that are sometimes tortured are known guerrillas or terrorist collaborators who aren’t exactly innocent. I don’t say this justifies torture, which I don’t condone, but clearly both terrorist acts and the torture of captives (to extract information about terrorist cells) are common reactions to the frustrations of fighting for survival in an unconventional war. It happens on both sides. One thing that US intelligence confirms is that Arabs do torture with a passion and hardly any captives of the Palestinians emerge alive or in one piece, unless they are being held for ransom.
The issue of refugees left over from these four wars of Arab aggression is particularly a sore point. It has been asserted by a variety of Arab witnesses and Jewish sources that the refugee problem was almost entirely caused by Arab leaders evacuating Arab villages in Palestine in advance of the Arabs’ intended attacks upon the Jews. Arabs were openly told that they would cleanse the land of Jews and come back victorious to occupy the Jewish lands. In the 1948 war, there were numerous documented instances of Israelis going through towns with loudspeakers pleading with the Arabs not to leave. But it is the international community of globalists that is now fully to blame for the refugees’ current status. They have kept these refugees in virtual prison camps for nearly half a century and refused to let them leave to find voluntary relocation in Arab countries--even when they have known relatives to take them in. The refugees are kept holed up in misery to serve as a festering pool of hateful humanity intended as cannon fodder in the inevitable wars to come. The only refugees that are turned loose from the camps are those young radicals who are willing to become terrorists for the unholy Islamic jihad against Israel. I have to say that I have little tolerance for this refugee problem that the UN continues to foist upon the world. The world can’t expect Israel to commit political and military suicide by letting these resentful millions take up residence within Israel proper. Hypocritically, Arafat wants a sovereign state as a “home for the Palestinians” but won’t allow any refugees to return to his new state. Other Arab countries have vast unoccupied territories sufficient to give these people a home. It’s not a perfect solution but it is by far the most workable if one really wants peace.
Sadly there is no easy solution to the problem in Israel. The Jewish and Arab communities are mostly separate and compartmentalized now, but also in close proximity to each other making it difficult to have a secure “peace of separation” In addition a good portion of the Arab workers work for Jews in Jewish areas. If cut off from work, Arab communities would die economically, since they are not self-sufficient, and the Jews would be cut off from their main labor pool. The government has long made it difficult for Jews to import other foreign laborers (e.g. Thai workers), hoping to force integration with the Arabs through shared needs. All that talk of integration is up in smoke now, so Jewish industry is desperate for non-Arab sources of cheap labor. The only way these two communities are ever going to get along is if the criminal and terrorist leadership are removed from among the Palestinians, (which can’t be done democratically) and if the Israelis are allowed to maintain security control over both areas. Time and again the Palestinians have proven that they cannot deal justly with both Arabs and Jews under their security control. On the contrary, everyone in Israel has observed that only in Jewish controlled security areas can both Arabs and Jews work without fear of reprisal and attack. I’ve seen Jewish security work and every Israeli-Arab who goes to work in peace each day knows that it works. It doesn’t work when the Arabs are attacking innocent Jewish civilians, but that’s to be expected. It is a pipe dream to continue to believe that you can treat criminals like Arafat as respected local or international leaders and come to a lasting peace. Arafat’s OSLO promises of peace for land and autonomy are now fully discredited. All that is needed is for the world to take off their blinders and accept that reality. They won’t because world leaders have another agenda, so there will never be peace for long.
MORE SECRET DEALS WITH RUSSIA
Not surprisingly, the press continues to refuse to make a big issue out of Al Gore’s secret deal with Russian former PM Viktor Chernomyrdin that the US would look the other way and not implement sanctions against Russia for illicit and ongoing nuclear technology transfers to Iran (nuclear missiles meant for the next war in the Middle East). This is media collusion with the dark side of government at its worst--covering up for the world’s next holocaust. No one even dares mention that this technology transfer is still going on, nor that Clinton had to know about it, nor that there are lots of other secret deals being made with both Russia and China that have not been revealed.
One of the big recent events that I am suspicious of is the sudden decision of Slobodon Milosovich to step down in Serbia and recognize the CIA financed election of his opponent, Vojislav Kostunica. It is obvious from the train of events that the US made a deal with Vladimir Putin, who immediately made Milosovic an “offer he couldn’t refuse.” Russia’s opposition to NATO meddling in Serbia was a bulwark of Putin’s public positions. Suddenly, Putin turns chummy with the West and Milosovic goes from being a defiant tyrant one day to a submissive party member the next. I’m convinced of two things: 1) the US promised Putin continued financial support (loans and credits) in exchange for getting Milosovic to step down, and 2) that Kostunica is not really a non-Communist NATO ally. Like Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel and Lech Walenza of Poland, I believe Kostunica is merely playing the role as a pro-Western leader but, in reality is still working for Moscow. Kostunica is allowing Milosovich’s Socialist People’s Party to maintain control. Nobody knows better than the Russians how to play the world for fools. They’ve done it ever since they pulled off the phony “demise of the Soviet Union.” The only trouble is the Russians don’t fully realize that Western gullibility and naiveté is not what it seems. The globalists keep playing the fool, paying tyrants to build weapons, not because they are stupid, but because they are masters in the art of manipulation through war. Out of the conflicts these global insiders are fomenting for the future, they hope to implant, in the aftermath of Russia’s defeat, their brand of heavy-handed control upon the world.
THE FAR EAST CONTINUES TO SHOW SIGNS OF DESTABILIZATION
In the past few months, while the West has been preoccupied with the election, major pro-Western political figures in the Far East have been removed from office or politically weakened. This month the Philippine House of Representatives impeached Philippine President Joseph Estrada on corruption charges. Every Philippine administration is corrupt, so that’s nothing new. What is novel is that somehow Estrada ran afoul of the local power brokers.
In Taiwan, President Chen Shui-bian was weakened when one of his most important pro-independence allies resigned from his party--and for good reason: Chen has not turned out to be the pro-independence leader he promised to be and has made continual compromises with the Red Chinese. He continues to look the other way while Taiwanese corporations transfer US-derived military technology to Chinese front companies in Hong Kong. So it appears that even Taiwan, so near to its death as a free nation, cannot resist the call for fatal compromise with the Red Dragon.
In Japan, Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori is in the midst of a major dispute over leadership that threatens to split the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Both major opposition parties in Japan are globalist controlled and leaning toward appeasement of Chinese expansion. Given China’s aim to avenge Japan’s 1930’s invasion of China, appeasement of China will prove fatal.
In South Korea, President Kim Dae Jung met with North Korea's Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang, where the two leaders established a new “peace process” promising to lead toward eventual reunification. For his efforts, President Kim was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No one gets the Noble Peace Prize unless he is engaged, knowingly or unknowingly, in the sellout of his nation’s liberty; just read the list of past recipients. This peace process will be a one-way street toward aid and trade with North Korea--an essential precursor necessary to help this Communist regime prepare for the coming war.